Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> I think that topic is not about "how we can do it another way", but why
> this patch was not commited. This patch doesn't change current behavior,
> but allows operator to choose another behavior.
> Allowing more choices is always good thing, so I am for commiting this
> patch.


I agree completely. The point of this patch is to
add an option (remember: options are optional ;-)
and the default is off, i.e, no change in behaviour.
So those who don't like the new option don't have to
do anything, and nothing will change. Those for whom
the new option is useful will enable it. Everybody
happy, right?

I also vote for committing the patch. (Personally I
will probably also enable that new option. I prefer
to be notified only if something does _not_ work.
YMMV, of course.)

Best regards
Oliver

--
Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M.
Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung:
secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün-
chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart

FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd

PI:
int f[9814],b,c=9814,g,i;long a=1e4,d,e,h;
main(){for(;b=c,c-=14;i=printf("%04d",e+d/a),e=d%a)
while(g=--b*2)d=h*b+a*(i?f[b]:a/5),h=d/--g,f[b]=d%g;}
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/lis...freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"