nomenclature for conf files

[Kurt Buff]

OK - I figured it out.

I have always followed the examples in the handbook. I have also been
bitten more than once when I've typoed, and left out one of the quote
marks.

That tends to leave a lasting impression, as it can be painful to fix,
sometimes requiring to drop into single user mode to clean up.

Kurt


On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Chris Rees <utisoft at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 12 Nov 2012 15:35, "Kurt Buff" <kurt.buff at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Chris Rees <utisoft at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 12 Nov 2012 05:20, "Kurt Buff" <kurt.buff at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Zoran Kolic <zkolic at sbb.rs> wrote:
> > >> > It might sound stupid, but I'd like to know if there's
> > >> > any difference. Are those 3 line the same?
> > >> >
> > >> > WITH_KMS=YES
> > >> > WITH_KMS="YES"
> > >> > WITH_KMS=yes
> > >>
> > >> With regard to their use in /etc/rc.conf, no, absolutely not.
> > >>
> > >> In general, from my experience, only the second one will work.
> > >>
> > >> This might, or might not, be true for other uses, but rc.conf is
> > >> pretty picky about this.
> > >
> > > All three are fine in make.conf and rc.conf
> > >
> > > The issue with rc.conf is when people put spaces around the = sign.
> > >
> > > Chris
> >
> > This has not been my experience - but I will experiment soon and see
> > if I can verify.
>
> Anything that complains about any of those syntaxes is a bug.  Please file
> a PR if you find any examples.
>
> Chris
>