Hi,
This makes some minor improvements to doas.1, doas.conf.5, and (just
barely) su.1.
A lot of this was just annotating `command` with Ar, which I find
helpful when reading man pages as immediately know it's an argument; not
sure what everyone else thinks.
According to apropos(1), there's a few
Hi,
mdoc(7) states that the Cm macro should be used for "fixed strings
passed as arguments, unless Fl is more appropriate", which seems like a
better fit for the below cases than Ar.
Regards,
Michael
Index: rcctl.8
===
RCS file: /cv
On 07/25/15 01:46, trondd wrote:
On 2015-07-24 19:15, Michael McConville wrote:
I removed it because I wasn't sure whether the project liked placebo
legacy flags. Should I replace it?
For reference: When -U was removed it was removed.
Compared to -a, which we've had since -97, -U was a glitc
On 2015-07-24 19:15, Michael McConville wrote:
I removed it because I wasn't sure whether the project liked placebo
legacy flags. Should I replace it?
For reference: When -U was removed it was removed.
http://marc.info/?t=14280712873&r=1&w=2
Tim.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:17:12PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2015-07-23, Michael McConville wrote:
>
> > --- sbin/dump/main.c23 May 2015 05:17:20 - 1.56
> > +++ sbin/dump/main.c15 Jun 2015 23:16:10 -
> > @@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
>
On 2015-07-23, Michael McConville wrote:
> --- sbin/dump/main.c 23 May 2015 05:17:20 - 1.56
> +++ sbin/dump/main.c 15 Jun 2015 23:16:10 -
> @@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
> usage();
>
> obsolete(&argc, &argv);
> - while ((ch = getopt(argc
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 07:27:36AM +, Thanos Tsouanas wrote:
> Index: daily.8
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/share/man/man8/daily.8,v
> retrieving revision 1.21
> diff -u -p -r1.21 daily.8
> --- daily.8 16 Jul 2014 17:03:17 -
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 07:20:06AM +, Thanos Tsouanas wrote:
> Index: relayd.conf.5
> ===
fixed, and a few more beside.
jmc
> RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/relayd/relayd.conf.5,v
> retrieving revision 1.163
> diff -u -p -r1.163 rel
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 07:56:07AM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> "generally reliable" HAHAHAHAHA
Why irony? It's more or less true for ALL modern computing system.
On 2015/07/23 18:49, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> There is no way this diff is going in.
>
> When softdep is 100% reliable, then we can talk.
Even if 100% reliable, by design it tends to cause problems on smaller
filesystems as space is not reclaimed for removed files until after some
delay.
10 matches
Mail list logo
