Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 21:23:44 +0100 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> To: audit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: suidperl Message-ID: <200207052023.g65KNjii076150@grimreaper.grondar.org> In-Reply-To: <20020705102540.A74822@dragon.nuxi.com> ; from "David O'Brien" <dev-null@NUXI.com> "Fri, 05 Jul 2002 10:25:40 PDT." References: <20020705102540.A74822@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 12:35:04AM +0900, Akinori MUSHA wrote: > > By the way, do we really need a perl wrapper in the first place? I > > suppose we can tweak ports/lang/perl5 to create symlinks (for example) > > when NO_PERL_SYMLINKS is not defined. > > This question really needs to be decided on. Not being a Perl-head I > don't feel qualified to have an opinion. But we do seem to be lacking a > little leadership here. If we are going to have a wrapper, using > `mailwrapper' may be better as it is more exact and does not depend on > one's PATH setting. I am inclining myself to the mailwrapper idea, but generalised out to do more than mail. CURRENT's current perl-wrapper is a good idea, but it is incomplete IMO. M -- o Mark Murray \_ O.\_ Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200207052023.g65KNjii076150>