Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:34:24 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steveo@eircom.net>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /etc/shells #include syntax support patch Message-ID: <20010129103424.A65461@hamlet.nectar.com> In-Reply-To: <200101291631.LAA34977@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>; from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu on Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 11:31:32AM -0500 References: <20010128101349.2c94539f.steveo@eircom.net> <20010128190227.B25222@spawn.nectar.com> <200101291631.LAA34977@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 11:31:32AM -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote: > <<On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 19:02:27 -0600, "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com> said: > > I would rather that a separate configuration file be read, for example, > > with a list of shells(5) format files to consult. > > I would rather have a single file, located in a directory intended for > configuration files. Perhaps we could call it ``/etc/shells'' which > seems to be popular. > > There is no inherent virtue in having (some subset of) configuration > files on every partition. Actually I agree: I don't think anything needs to change. But, if a `feature' such as this _does_ go in, I don't want it to mean that there is a `new' format for `/etc/shells'. -- Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / jvidrine@verio.net / nectar@FreeBSD.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?20010129103424.A65461>