From 29a46b532018930979b26f9068cceb4870bc90d8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Devin Teske Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 19:37:14 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Remove supposition comment that code would better live elsewhere. Thinking this through, and looking at process_assignment, I believe moving the code would be wrong considering that set_conf_files is called in one condition while set_nextboot_conf is guarded by a different condition of having nextboot_enable="YES". So these must stay separated and not combined. MFC after: 1 week --- sys/boot/forth/support.4th | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/sys/boot/forth/support.4th b/sys/boot/forth/support.4th index 7812a9bafd3..5a005b4acd8 100644 --- a/sys/boot/forth/support.4th +++ b/sys/boot/forth/support.4th @@ -684,7 +684,7 @@ only forth also support-functions also file-processing definitions s" loader_conf_files" getenv conf_files string= ; -: set_nextboot_conf \ XXX maybe do as set_conf_files ? +: set_nextboot_conf value_buffer strget unquote nextboot_conf_file string= ;