Subject: Re: [2.0.2/i386] Install without sysinst : single-user mode? sysinst?
To: David Laight <>
From: Dan LaBell <>
List: netbsd-users
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 
> it.
> 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 
> unlink("xxx").

> 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.