On Fri, 13.08.10 16:22, Adam Spragg (a...@spra.gg) wrote: > > On Friday 13 Aug 2010 15:54:28 Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Fri, 13.08.10 00:18, Adam Spragg (a...@spra.gg) wrote: > > > > > So [auditctl] would be something to set to "Type=finish" and > > > > > "ValidNoProcess=no". > > > > > > > > > > (Oh, and if you have a better suggestion for a name of > > > > > ValidNoProcess= I am all ears too!) > > > > > > 'RequiresProcess='? > > > > Hmm, that would turn around the logic. I'd rathe have an option that > > defaults to "off", and when specified may be set on "on". > > Maybe. > > I have a long-ingrained dislike of boolean flags/variables/settings that > include a "no" or "not" in them. "notfound" is a particular peeve of mine in > a > codebase I'm currently working on. Deciphering "!notfound" and "notfound" > unnecessarily requires more brain cycles than "found" and "!found" would > have. > I have to stop and check I'm doing what I think I'm doing every time I come > across it. I also have the same problem with UIs that have checkboxes marked > "disable feature X". It's just *awkward* - more so than it needs to > be.
Yes, I share the same belief, which is one of the reasons I'd be happy to rename this. So, Kay and I came up with these two ideas: KeepAfterExit= ActiveAfterExit= Opinions? Preferences? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
