[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: rc & runsystem

From: Roland McGrath
Subject: Re: rc & runsystem
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:46:08 -0800 (PST)

>    > Or did you mean "not to overwrite existing stuff"?  If you didn't
>    > then we both agree, and this whole discussion was pointless.
>    No, I said overwrite selectively.
> No you didn't.  

Give me a fucking break.  When you find yourself arguing with someone
about what he himself said, while quoting the same words, it is time to
feel a bit silly.

> ,----
> | If you want to use make install for _overwriting_existing_stuff_
> | selectively, you should expect to have to use some configure or make
> | tweak to get that to happen.
> `----
> Part which I was refering to is emphasised.

Yeah, you don't get to ignore modifiers in the same clause and then say
that they don't modify the meaning of the clause.  Adverbs matter, bub.
I might be better off if I didn't rely on grammar to communicate my
meaning, but I do and I'm just not going to stop, not even for you.

> I don't consider /libexec/rc a executable, I consider it a
> configuration file (that just happens to have a couple bits fliped to
> make it executable).

That's what you are wrong about.

> But there are perfectly valid reasons to edit /libexec/rc, and as such
> it should be classifed as a configuration file.  

Those are reasons why it should be considered a totally crappy
implementation, derided for its uselessness, and replaced with something
worth having.  Those are all things I wholeheartedly support.  
It's still not a configuration file.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]