On Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 10:48:44AM -0800, Greywolf wrote:
> Someone (Frank?  Greg?  Whom?) seemed to want to issue a statement about
> "Oh, those details [in rc.subr], you don't need to concern yourself with
> them."
> 
> I would like to see an amendment or retraction of that statement.  It's
> not up to the vendor (in this case, NetBSD) to decide what needs to be
> or doesn't need to be seen.  We're mostly technical types here (I hope!),
> so please don't try to close a gaping chest wound with a styptic pencil.

I was the one who made it, and I think you misunderstood (maybe I wasn't
being very clear). Some people appeared to be judging the whole new rc.d
system by the contents of rc.subr, which were not immediately clear
to them. I thought this was unfair, because rc.subr is basically just
a helper library of functions, and it's not required to write scripts.
So that's why I said "you don't need to see that part", i.e. you don't
have to be aware of rc.subr to use the system.

Of course people should see the source, we're an open source OS.. that's
the whole point.

- Frank