On 2013-04-07 6:55 AM, Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty,
nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE,
Well... even I know enough to reason that 'empty' in this context means
no UNcommented lines. Comments are just that, and if there are no
UNcommented lines, then nothing is active, hence it is effectively
'empty'.
But not actually empty. If you are correct, and I suspect you are, then
the news item is poorly worded. No effective content is not the same as
no content at all.
Oh, I agree that it was poorly worded, I was just pointing out that it
was kind of silly to take quite it so literally...
Every sysadmin knows (or should know) that a config file full of nothing
but comments isn't going to do *anything* other than provide whatever
defaults the program is designed to use in such a case.
