Re: nomenclature for conf files

2012-11-13 Thread Kurt Buff
OK - I figured it out. I have always followed the examples in the handbook. I have also been bitten more than once when I've typoed, and left out one of the quote marks. That tends to leave a lasting impression, as it can be painful to fix, sometimes requiring to drop into single user mode to cle

Re: nomenclature for conf files

2012-11-13 Thread Jakub Lach
://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/nomenclature-for-conf-files-tp5760163p5760661.html Sent from the freebsd-stable mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscr

Re: nomenclature for conf files

2012-11-13 Thread ill...@gmail.com
On 12 November 2012 00:12, Zoran Kolic wrote: > It might sound stupid, but I'd like to know if there's > any difference. Are those 3 line the same? > > WITH_KMS=YES > WITH_KMS="YES" > WITH_KMS=yes > > Best regards In /etc/make.conf it shouldn't matter: they should all be treated as synonyms for:

Re: nomenclature for conf files

2012-11-12 Thread Chris Rees
On 12 Nov 2012 15:35, "Kurt Buff" wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Chris Rees wrote: > > > > On 12 Nov 2012 05:20, "Kurt Buff" wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Zoran Kolic wrote: > >> > It might sound stupid, but I'd like to know if there's > >> > any difference. Ar

Re: nomenclature for conf files

2012-11-12 Thread Kurt Buff
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Chris Rees wrote: > > On 12 Nov 2012 05:20, "Kurt Buff" wrote: >> >> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Zoran Kolic wrote: >> > It might sound stupid, but I'd like to know if there's >> > any difference. Are those 3 line the same? >> > >> > WITH_KMS=YES >> > WITH_

Re: nomenclature for conf files

2012-11-12 Thread Paul Schenkeveld
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:24:57AM +, Chris Rees wrote: > On 12 Nov 2012 08:55, "Paul Schenkeveld" wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 08:29:27AM +, Chris Rees wrote: > > > On 12 Nov 2012 05:20, "Kurt Buff" wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Zoran Kolic wrote: > >

Re: nomenclature for conf files

2012-11-12 Thread Chris Rees
On 12 Nov 2012 08:55, "Paul Schenkeveld" wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 08:29:27AM +, Chris Rees wrote: > > On 12 Nov 2012 05:20, "Kurt Buff" wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Zoran Kolic wrote: > > > > It might sound stupid, but I'd like to know if there's > > > > any

Re: nomenclature for conf files

2012-11-12 Thread Paul Schenkeveld
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 08:29:27AM +, Chris Rees wrote: > On 12 Nov 2012 05:20, "Kurt Buff" wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Zoran Kolic wrote: > > > It might sound stupid, but I'd like to know if there's > > > any difference. Are those 3 line the same? > > > > > > WITH_KMS=YES

Re: nomenclature for conf files

2012-11-12 Thread Chris Rees
On 12 Nov 2012 05:20, "Kurt Buff" wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Zoran Kolic wrote: > > It might sound stupid, but I'd like to know if there's > > any difference. Are those 3 line the same? > > > > WITH_KMS=YES > > WITH_KMS="YES" > > WITH_KMS=yes > > With regard to their use in /etc/

Re: nomenclature for conf files

2012-11-11 Thread Kevin Oberman
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Zoran Kolic wrote: > > > WITH_KMS=YES > > > WITH_KMS="YES" > > > WITH_KMS=yes > > > > With regard to their use in /etc/rc.conf, no, absolutely not. > > In general, from my experience, only the second one will work. > > Yep, in rc.conf only the second one. I was th

Re: nomenclature for conf files

2012-11-11 Thread Zoran Kolic
> > WITH_KMS=YES > > WITH_KMS="YES" > > WITH_KMS=yes > > With regard to their use in /etc/rc.conf, no, absolutely not. > In general, from my experience, only the second one will work. Yep, in rc.conf only the second one. I was thinking of make.conf. It is the place kms should be set. Loader conf

Re: nomenclature for conf files

2012-11-11 Thread Kurt Buff
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Zoran Kolic wrote: > It might sound stupid, but I'd like to know if there's > any difference. Are those 3 line the same? > > WITH_KMS=YES > WITH_KMS="YES" > WITH_KMS=yes With regard to their use in /etc/rc.conf, no, absolutely not. In general, from my experience,

nomenclature for conf files

2012-11-11 Thread Zoran Kolic
It might sound stupid, but I'd like to know if there's any difference. Are those 3 line the same? WITH_KMS=YES WITH_KMS="YES" WITH_KMS=yes Best regards Zoran ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd