[Bug 243094] reboot problem

[Kelly Alger]

Call me crazy, but it seems like the real question is why you would want 
a command called, "reboot," to NOT execute /etc/rc.shutdown, no? Sure, 
maybe with some extra param. it would just force a shutdown without 
executing /etc/rc.shutdown, but certainly not as the default. Of course, 
if it's specified in the man page for the command that it doesn't then 
there's really nothing to complain about. If it isn't in the man page 
then it ought to be, right?

I have to agree, however, that, "threatening," to use some other OS is 
really no threat at all. (Particularly when the, "threat," is to start 
using Windoze... "If you don't make this work the way I want you to I'm 
going to whack my thumb with this hammer! And I'll continue whacking my 
own thumb until you capitulate!" "Well... I guess... You can do that. 
It's your thumb, after all. Do what you like with it.")

(Yes, for those who don't understand, I don't really think there is no 
place is the world for Windoze. There just isn't any place for it on my 
LAN. Do what you want with your own thumbs.)

On 1/5/20 4:31 PM, bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org wrote:
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243094
>
> --- Comment #8 from Bernhard Berger <bernhard at blberger.de> ---
> (In reply to Conrad Meyer from comment #7)
>
> I'll give you an example:
> If it says "bread" on the package, then any reasonable person would assume that
> there is bread inside.
> This is also the case with the "reboot" program, so even if called without
> parameters, the "reboot" function should be executed in a system-compliant
> manner, and that includes executing /etc/rc.shutdown.
> But it's not the error that upsets me, it's that you don't even try to fix it.
> I am very outraged by this.
> Maybe it wasn't so serious "before" and therefore not noticeable. But with the
> arrival of bhyve, it takes on a whole new meaning. Therefore, the program
> reboot should definitely be revised and adapted to the new requirements (this
> has obviously been missed).
> Since it is not part of the Posix standard, you can also move it into the ports
> and remove it from the ports with notice.
>
> There are solutions, you just have to want it.
>