Subject: Re: NetBSD master CVS tree commits
To: Chris G Demetriou <Chris_G_Demetriou@ux2.sp.cs.cmu.edu>
From: matthew green <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/31/1996 20:02:50
> Look, either address all the arguments we made in the previous round
> of discussion (/etc/init.d is messy, difficult to understand, uses
> alphabetical ordering of symlink names in a manner resembling BASIC
> GOTO statements to store configuration information, and does this all
> to simplify exactly one operation, when there are plenty of other,
> better ways to do that), or don't ressurect the argument at all.
In my opinion, about your parenthesized points:
(1) is false, (2) is false, (3) is a feature, and (4) i've yet to see
any better proposals about how to do it.
can't we keep these _SUBJECTIVE_ options out of this ?
i mean, all we have so far verifed is that:
(1) some people still support the "old" way.
(2) some people still want the "sysV" way.
greg's (1) point might be false to you -- but it's not to me.
greg's (3) point might be a feature to you -- but it's not to me.
i do not see how we can't support both methods in a simple and
clean manner. please re-think about my earlier proposal.