Subject: Re: [2.0.2/i386] Install without sysinst : single-user mode? sysinst?
To: David Laight <email@example.com>
From: Dan LaBell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/27/2005 19:11:34
On Jun 27, 2005, at 4:43 PM, David Laight wrote:
> The 'scripting' feature is a pain, I've sometimes thought of removing
> Maybe adding some extra logging instead.
> The problem is that it forces sysinst to execute programs instead of
> making system calls - so it does system("rm xxx") instead of
> This increases the complexity and makes error reporting/recovery more
> painful -
I bet, most programs seem to either return simply true or false, in C
there is errno, and
perror() etc, that one can avail oneself of.
I tended to confuse the phrase "system call", with "sys calls", when I
started programming on UNIX. I think there's some ambiguity, actually,
but it seems it's very common to say "system call" for system(),
despite that section 2 is titled "System Calls" -- I, having read all
the SunOS man pages, section by section, intro by intro, in order,
which, no doubt perverted me for life, almost always parsed the phrase
as a reference to any call in section 2, sadly, only confusion, not
hilarity , ensued. I think I've also heard the phrase "proper system
calls" to refer to section 2 calls... OT, but I noticed the change
would just go from 1 parse to another.