svn commit: r186737 - head/sbin/geom/class/virstor

Christian Brueffer brueffer at FreeBSD.org
Thu Mar 19 16:31:21 UTC 2009


On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 08:48:44PM +0100, Christian Brueffer wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 03:22:11AM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> > Daniel Gerzo <danger at freebsd.org> wrote
> >   in <1289663263.20090104185721 at rulez.sk>:
> > 
> > da> Hello Hiroki,
> > da>
> > da> Sunday, January 4, 2009, 6:50:58 PM, you wrote:
> > da>
> > da> > Daniel Gerzo <danger at freebsd.org> wrote
> > da> >   in <287359450.20090104174842 at rulez.sk>:
> > da>
> > da> da>> Hello Christian,
> > da> da>>
> > da> da>> Sunday, January 4, 2009, 4:58:32 PM, you wrote:
> > da> da>>
> > da> da>> > While using .Ex is good, collapsing EXIT STATUS into DIAGNOSTICS is not.
> > da> da>> > EXIT STATUS is a standard section in our manpages and it's orthogonal to
> > da> da>> > DIAGNOSTICS.
> > da> da>>
> > da> da>> I am fine to revert this part, however I have trimmed this section
> > da> da>> just because I didn't see it listed in the PAGE STRUCTURE DOMAIN
> > da> da>> section of the mdoc(7) manual page.
> > da> da>>
> > da> da>> Interestingly, it lists the DIAGNOSTICS section and explicitly
> > da> da>> says that .Ex macro should be used there.
> > da>
> > da> >  Is using .Ex macro really correct?.  When geom(1) fails the exit
> > da> >  status will be 1, not >0.  While many commands whose manual page says
> > da> >  so return 1 on an error actually (especially when it is in POSIX),
> > da> >  the two are not the same at least.
> > da>
> > da> I thought that 1 > 0 ... (?)
> > 
> >  I mean I am wondering if rewriting "1" with ">0" is reasonable or
> >  not.  "1>0" is always true, but "1" is not equal to ">0".
> > 
> >  Some other manual pages have the description "1 on error.".  If we
> >  have a consensus on that this rewriting is reasonable, we should
> >  also rewrite them in consistency.
> > 
> 
> Interesting question, I have no strong opinion for either of the
> alternatives.  I agree that we should standardize on one though.
> 

Any news on this?  I would still like to see the original change be
reverted.

- Christian

-- 
Christian Brueffer	chris at unixpages.org	brueffer at FreeBSD.org
GPG Key:	 http://people.freebsd.org/~brueffer/brueffer.key.asc
GPG Fingerprint: A5C8 2099 19FF AACA F41B  B29B 6C76 178C A0ED 982D
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-doc/attachments/20090319/95ad42d7/attachment.sig>


More information about the freebsd-doc mailing list