Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 15:15:17 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: brian@awfulhak.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rc & rc.conf Message-ID: <19970914151517.24823@lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <199709140446.VAA08907@usr08.primenet.com>; from Terry Lambert on Sun, Sep 14, 1997 at 04:46:13AM %2B0000 References: <19970914101350.06261@lemis.com> <199709140446.VAA08907@usr08.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Sep 14, 1997 at 04:46:13AM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote: >>> This is a disaster waiting to happen: >> >> I'm sorry, I must be too stupid. What's wrong with that? And how >> does your fix fix it? Since the flags and the -enable have been >> separated, it seems that we *should* insist on the exact string YES >> for the enable flags. > > 1) The logic is inverted from that of all similar code > > 2) The value "YES" means that flag values, if they should > be later desired, can't be put in the string in order > to activate the services with the requested flags, like > you can for all similar code. Yes, I'm not quite *that* stupid. We have two variables here: a -flags which is set with the flags, and an -enable which is set to either YES or NO. The original logic says "don't do it unless -enable is YES". Brian's saying "do it unless -enable is NO". I don't see an advantage in doing it this way, and I certainly don't see a disaster waiting to happen in the old way. Another thing that puzzles me is why somebody would want to disable cron. Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970914151517.24823>