Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:59:30 +0100 From: Vadim Belman <voland@lflat.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM> Subject: Re: /etc/shells #include syntax support patch Message-ID: <20010129105930.C62046@lflat.vas.mobilix.dk> In-Reply-To: <200101290453.f0T4roq13148@whizzo.transsys.com>; from louie@TransSys.COM on Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 11:53:50PM -0500 References: <20010128101349.2c94539f.steveo@eircom.net> <20010128190227.B25222@spawn.nectar.com> <200101290453.f0T4roq13148@whizzo.transsys.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 11:53:50PM -0500, Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
> Does this capability really need to exist (e.g., supporting many files)? It
> would seem like the additional complexity would be not what you want for what's
> essentially a security policy mechansim. Who gets to own these included files?
> What should their permissions be allowed to be?
>
> It doesn't seem unreasonable to have a single file with a list of allowable
> shells.
It does if you think of mergemaster, for example. With any upgrade
it consider /etc/shells as changed and prompts for replacing/merging/etc.
--
/Voland Vadim Belman
E-mail: voland@lflat.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010129105930.C62046>