From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <9front-bounces@9front.inri.net> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE, VISTA_COST autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from 9front.inri.net (9front.inri.net [168.235.81.73]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA280216AA for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2024 06:44:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]) by 9front; Thu Jun 20 00:43:37 -0400 2024 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A20A82A06A for <9front@9front.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2024 00:43:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from me+unobe@fallglow.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=message-id :date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=dQqCdBs8fHuUZID02QSKhbLJq G3MRTK+xIt3XCVPJAo=; b=dd2eQV4+qle4DI9G8mRhJWCJs0Um48v7p+oYD5rHg eVSg/EqV3GnFjtj72NifXwmUA86prDTewnqmr2mMwYaDJs+58smfb1NhjZsjZlej 0Eo5alADDgT3aU69SV2x/OspY94lebhIVjXRTTErHz/K3q+Ybp4agNyV33FdWsjP bw= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B34A2A069 for <9front@9front.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2024 00:43:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from me+unobe@fallglow.com) Received: from strider.localdomain (unknown [97.131.41.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2312A2A068 for <9front@9front.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2024 00:43:32 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from me+unobe@fallglow.com) Message-ID: <070CD199C10EE4DBF8E774A375958A97@smtp.pobox.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 21:43:29 -0700 From: Romano To: 9front@9front.org In-Reply-To: <14907ae5-4ab8-4e4f-8d3b-8ba083c59543@posixcafe.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pobox-Relay-ID: A58357F0-2EBF-11EF-81F1-C38742FD603B-09620299!pb-smtp20.pobox.com List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: agile TOR over AJAX just-in-time module-aware manager Subject: Re: [9front] ramfs usage Reply-To: 9front@9front.org Precedence: bulk On Wed Jun 19 14:23:38 -0700 2024, moody@posixcafe.org wrote: > My vote would be to keep things as is. > > While it is not a great precedent, a large chunk of code > from what I've seen don't throw errors for nonsensical combinations. > If doing things from scratch I would think perhaps its worth the effort > to check for, but it is probably too late to set this precedent and modifying > programs after the fact. I just don't want this to be the start of this happening > to every program. Thanks for the look-thru, Moody. Yeah, that makes sense. To be honest, this was me going through to understand exactly how ramfs worked and coming across some puzzling behavior (like the ordering of -s & -m making a difference), and then taking more time to figure out how it matched up with the man page and addressing it so that I don't have to be concerned if I specify -s or -m first. > A lot of these man page changes seem like a general rewrite, in particular the > change of "option" to "flag" which feels off. Yeah, it was really to align all to either "option" or "flag". For instance, before the change some (-u, -D) were described as "option" while others (-p, -i, -s) were described as "flag". Maybe I'm missing a nuance there. > It just doesn't seem the benefits outweigh the cost of the churn to me. > > Thanks, > Moody Okay, thanks, Moody. At least I learned something by working through it. I do appreciate the consideration. > On 6/19/24 15:36, ori@eigenstate.org wrote: > > Hm. I'll talke a look at this; I wonder if it's too late > > to clean up the interaction of the flags. Probably :( Thanks, Ori.