On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 08:22:31AM -0600, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 15:29:27 +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
>
> > We'd like to rename the 'faulty' listing to 'failed'.
> > i.e. rcctl ls failed
> >
> > 'faulty' does sound a bit weird and is not obvious to remember.
> > Now the
> From: "Antoine Jacoutot" <ajacou...@bsdfrog.org>
> To: "Ian Darwin" <i...@darwinsys.com>
> Cc: "tech" <tech@openbsd.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 10:59:54 AM
> Subject: Re: rcctl ls faulty -> failed
> On Tue, Mar 29,
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:48:17AM -0400, Ian Darwin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 03:29:27PM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > We'd like to rename the 'faulty' listing to 'failed'.
> > i.e. rcctl ls failed
> >
> > Index: etc/daily
> >
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 03:29:27PM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> Hi.
>
> We'd like to rename the 'faulty' listing to 'failed'.
> i.e. rcctl ls failed
>
> Index: etc/daily
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/etc/daily,v
> retrieving
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 15:29:27 +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> We'd like to rename the 'faulty' listing to 'failed'.
> i.e. rcctl ls failed
>
> 'faulty' does sound a bit weird and is not obvious to remember.
> Now the question is should we keep supporting the 'faulty' keyword or not?
> I'm not in
Hi.
We'd like to rename the 'faulty' listing to 'failed'.
i.e. rcctl ls failed
'faulty' does sound a bit weird and is not obvious to remember.
Now the question is should we keep supporting the 'faulty' keyword or not?
I'm not in favor of adding a knob especially when it's just an alias; that'd
