On 14 August 2010 01:38, Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > 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.
How about "Processless="? -- James _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
