Doug Barton <[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:
do> On 01/07/2012 03:25, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: do> > On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 05:05:58PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: do> >> On 01/06/2012 06:13, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: do> >>> Any objections? do> >>> do> >>> http://people.freebsd.org/~pjd/patches/set_rcvar.patch do> >>> do> >>> This patch only changes scripts where set_rcvar can be used with no do> >>> arguments. do> >> do> >> Please don't do this. do> >> do> >> Jilles already pointed out the important reason, it adds pointless do> >> forks. I suggested a long time ago that we remove set_rcvar altogether do> >> but I got a lot of resistance to it, and never pursued it. Perhaps it's do> >> time to revisit that. do> > do> > It is a total mess now then and it is definiately not intuitive when do> > there are much more bad examples than good ones: do> do> I agree, which is why I previously proposed assigning them all directly do> when possible (which is in almost all cases). If no one speaks up do> opposing this idea in the next few days I'm still prepared to proceed. I am always wondering if defining $rcvar as "${name}_enable" at the end of load_rc_config() when $rcvar is undefined is bad idea. Is there any problem with removing rcvar=... in individual rc.d scripts except for non-standard ones (empty or different from ${name}_enable)? It looks simpler than writing the same line "rcvar=${name}_enable" many times in various places. -- Hiroki
pgpiBofrUerb1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
