Re: nomenclature for conf files
On 12 November 2012 00:12, Zoran Kolic zko...@sbb.rs 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: WITH_KMS= -- -- ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: nomenclature for conf files
Also, the FreeBSD makefiles and sources test all WITH_* variables with .ifdef or #ifdef so the value doesn't matter and can even be empty. This is exactly the point. But I still use 'yes' just for mnemotechnical reason. -- View this message in context: http://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 unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: nomenclature for conf files
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 clean up. Kurt On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Chris Rees utis...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 Nov 2012 15:35, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Chris Rees utis...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 Nov 2012 05:20, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Zoran Kolic zko...@sbb.rs 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, only the second one will work. This might, or might not, be true for other uses, but rc.conf is pretty picky about this. All three are fine in make.conf and rc.conf The issue with rc.conf is when people put spaces around the = sign. Chris This has not been my experience - but I will experiment soon and see if I can verify. Anything that complains about any of those syntaxes is a bug. Please file a PR if you find any examples. Chris ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: nomenclature for conf files
On 12 Nov 2012 05:20, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Zoran Kolic zko...@sbb.rs 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, only the second one will work. This might, or might not, be true for other uses, but rc.conf is pretty picky about this. All three are fine in make.conf and rc.conf The issue with rc.conf is when people put spaces around the = sign. Chris ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: nomenclature for conf files
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 08:29:27AM +, Chris Rees wrote: On 12 Nov 2012 05:20, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Zoran Kolic zko...@sbb.rs 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, only the second one will work. This might, or might not, be true for other uses, but rc.conf is pretty picky about this. All three are fine in make.conf and rc.conf The issue with rc.conf is when people put spaces around the = sign. Chris Indeed /etc/rc (executed by /bin/sh) accepts all three forms because quotes are optional in /bin/sh and /etc/rc.subr (sourced by /etc/rc) matches the value against [Yy][Ee][Ss]|[Tt][Rr][Uu][Ee]|[Oo][Nn]|1. Also, the FreeBSD makefiles and sources test all WITH_* variables with .ifdef or #ifdef so the value doesn't matter and can even be empty. White space around the = is permitted too (but not in rc.conf!). However, things are different when people start using tools to maintain rc.conf/make.conf. If not written with the above in mind, these tools may have problems parsing these files. It's good practice to be consistent and use a canonical form that matches the documentation or example files as this is probably the syntax that is guarenteed to not confuse such tools. In other words: Be conservative in what you send [write], liberal in what you accept. HTH Paul Schenkeveld ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: nomenclature for conf files
On 12 Nov 2012 08:55, Paul Schenkeveld free...@psconsult.nl wrote: On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 08:29:27AM +, Chris Rees wrote: On 12 Nov 2012 05:20, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Zoran Kolic zko...@sbb.rs 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, only the second one will work. This might, or might not, be true for other uses, but rc.conf is pretty picky about this. All three are fine in make.conf and rc.conf The issue with rc.conf is when people put spaces around the = sign. Chris Indeed /etc/rc (executed by /bin/sh) accepts all three forms because quotes are optional in /bin/sh and /etc/rc.subr (sourced by /etc/rc) matches the value against [Yy][Ee][Ss]|[Tt][Rr][Uu][Ee]|[Oo][Nn]|1. Also, the FreeBSD makefiles and sources test all WITH_* variables with .ifdef or #ifdef so the value doesn't matter and can even be empty. White space around the = is permitted too (but not in rc.conf!). However, things are different when people start using tools to maintain rc.conf/make.conf. If not written with the above in mind, these tools may have problems parsing these files. It's good practice to be consistent and use a canonical form that matches the documentation or example files as this is probably the syntax that is guarenteed to not confuse such tools. In other words: Be conservative in what you send [write], liberal in what you accept. Doesn't sound like a very good tool if it can't handle quoting and capital letters, but I accept the principle. Quotes in Makefiles are often harmful, so good practice IMO is to only use them when necessary. Chris ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: nomenclature for conf files
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:24:57AM +, Chris Rees wrote: On 12 Nov 2012 08:55, Paul Schenkeveld free...@psconsult.nl wrote: On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 08:29:27AM +, Chris Rees wrote: On 12 Nov 2012 05:20, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Zoran Kolic zko...@sbb.rs 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, only the second one will work. This might, or might not, be true for other uses, but rc.conf is pretty picky about this. All three are fine in make.conf and rc.conf The issue with rc.conf is when people put spaces around the = sign. Chris Indeed /etc/rc (executed by /bin/sh) accepts all three forms because quotes are optional in /bin/sh and /etc/rc.subr (sourced by /etc/rc) matches the value against [Yy][Ee][Ss]|[Tt][Rr][Uu][Ee]|[Oo][Nn]|1. Also, the FreeBSD makefiles and sources test all WITH_* variables with .ifdef or #ifdef so the value doesn't matter and can even be empty. White space around the = is permitted too (but not in rc.conf!). However, things are different when people start using tools to maintain rc.conf/make.conf. If not written with the above in mind, these tools may have problems parsing these files. It's good practice to be consistent and use a canonical form that matches the documentation or example files as this is probably the syntax that is guarenteed to not confuse such tools. In other words: Be conservative in what you send [write], liberal in what you accept. Doesn't sound like a very good tool if it can't handle quoting and capital letters, but I accept the principle. Chris I wouldn't want to verify all home-grown scripts written by sysadmins around the Internet though. Quotes in Makefiles are often harmful, so good practice IMO is to only use them when necessary. For Makefiles yes, quotes are not part of the assignment syntax but appear in the expansion of the macros so be careful. For sh compatible config files better use them for clarity and parsability although I realize that then differences between and ' come into play too. HTH Paul Schenkeveld ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: nomenclature for conf files
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Chris Rees utis...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 Nov 2012 05:20, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Zoran Kolic zko...@sbb.rs 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, only the second one will work. This might, or might not, be true for other uses, but rc.conf is pretty picky about this. All three are fine in make.conf and rc.conf The issue with rc.conf is when people put spaces around the = sign. Chris This has not been my experience - but I will experiment soon and see if I can verify. Kurt ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: nomenclature for conf files
On 12 Nov 2012 15:35, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Chris Rees utis...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 Nov 2012 05:20, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Zoran Kolic zko...@sbb.rs 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, only the second one will work. This might, or might not, be true for other uses, but rc.conf is pretty picky about this. All three are fine in make.conf and rc.conf The issue with rc.conf is when people put spaces around the = sign. Chris This has not been my experience - but I will experiment soon and see if I can verify. Anything that complains about any of those syntaxes is a bug. Please file a PR if you find any examples. Chris ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
nomenclature for conf files
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.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: nomenclature for conf files
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Zoran Kolic zko...@sbb.rs 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, only the second one will work. This might, or might not, be true for other uses, but rc.conf is pretty picky about this. Kurt ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: nomenclature for conf files
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 might take only versions also. Thank you and best regards Zoran ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: nomenclature for conf files
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Zoran Kolic zko...@sbb.rs 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 thinking of make.conf. It is the place kms should be set. Loader conf might take only versions also. Thank you and best regards A minor detail, but the line does not belong in rc.conf (a shell script), but in /etc/make.conf (a Makefile). Normally you don't use quotation marks in that case, but it really does not matter in this case as the presence of WITH_KMS= is the significant part. I believe that WITH_KMS=no and WITH_KMS=yes are equivalent. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer E-mail: kob6...@gmail.com ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
