Re: "cno" keyword for config(8)

[Paul Goyette <paul%vps1.whooppee.com@localhost>]

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016, Christos Zoulas wrote:

> On Aug 7, 12:29am, kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost (Robert Elz) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: "cno" keyword for config(8)
>
> | SOunds like a good idea to me, it bugs me often that my "no xxx" stuff
> | in config files keeps failing when someone deletes, or renames, xxx
> |
> | But an alternative would be to just change "no" so that it doesn't fail
> | when there is nothing to remove (make "no" effectively be "cno") - the
> | effect (not having whatever it is) is achieved whether the "no" deletes
> | it or whether it never existed in the first place.
>
> Well, yes I thought about that and then to have a warning option to print the
> ones that did not match so that we can see typos... What do people prefer?

If I recall correctly, we get just such a warning when you use "no 
option foo" and "option foo" was not previously selected.  I think we 
should be consistent.  So, rather than using a new keyword 'cno', just 
change the current error into a warning.


+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| Paul Goyette     | PGP Key fingerprint:     | E-mail addresses:      |
| (Retired)        | FA29 0E3B 35AF E8AE 6651 | paul at whooppee.com   |
| Kernel Developer | 0786 F758 55DE 53BA 7731 | pgoyette at netbsd.org |
+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+