Rename sys/*/conf/DEFAULT to _DEFAULT

[David O'Brien]

On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:18:12AM -0600, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On one level this seems reasonable, on another, I don't see the point
> since on ever platform kernels beginning with G or N have this issue and
> on i386 you add at least S and P to that list.

If not, why not make it easier for folks with a kernel file named "DE*"?
If I could help with G, N, S, & P I would.

> It's slightly annoying,
> but IMO not terribly important and this doesn't actually solve more
> than 1/3 of the problem at best so I'm not convinced.

Why do you really care??  Does a file named _DEFAULTS bother anyone?
Considering that I'm not asking you, to do the work of the rename - and
the change is only two lines; is there really a need to object?  I'm I
likely to break someones scripts?  Do folks type "DEFAULT" in
sys/*/conf often?


On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 11:33:03AM -0500, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> my thoughts are: gratuitous and unnecessary. Renaming _your_ config
> file to something else is a better alternative, IMHO. 

Thanks, but no - I don't care to go thru the legal proceeding's to change
my name.


On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 09:00:14AM -0800, Ivan Pulleyn wrote:
> I would think adding "/DEFAULTS" to your file name completion exclude
> list would be a better solution.

I don't know how to - this change takes less time than it would for me to
figure out how to.  And, what I'm trying to do helps others so they don't
have to learn either.


On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:21:20AM -0800, Jason Evans wrote:
> Now, if you were to argue that DEFAULTS steals from the set of possible
> kernel names, and is a land mine that users must somehow know to avoid,
> I'd be less inclined to protest. :-)

I will add that to the list of benefits (there's not just one), and I
could see a realistic one given some commercial environments I've seen.

-- 
-- David  (obrien at FreeBSD.org)