On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:13:03 -0500
Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suppose most binaries don't bother to check if flags are set twice
> and throw an error. Most likely what they do is accept the last one
> set and ignore the previous ones.
That's generally the unix way of handling t
Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Tuesday, June 03, 2008 13:19:37 +0100 RW
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:13:15 -0500
Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Imagine my surprise when I discovered that *all* of my startup
scripts=20 were running double flags!
So, I looked at /etc/
--On Tuesday, June 03, 2008 13:19:37 +0100 RW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:13:15 -0500
Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Imagine my surprise when I discovered that *all* of my startup
scripts=20 were running double flags!
So, I looked at /etc/rc.subr, and lo and b
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:13:15 -0500
Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Imagine my surprise when I discovered that *all* of my startup
> scripts=20 were running double flags!
>
> So, I looked at /etc/rc.subr, and lo and behold:
> Line 670 of /etc/rc.subr has "$command $rc_flags $command_arg
To reply - figure it out
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1;
protocol="application/pkcs7-signature";
boundary="==628ED6B4E6FA03BA9DD4=="
--==628ED6B4E6FA03BA9DD4==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfe
