From owner-cvs-all Wed Apr 10 2:57:54 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from carbon.slackerbsd.org (pcp01400762pcs.glnodn01.pa.comcast.net [68.80.148.54]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEE9C37B400 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 02:57:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from carbon.slackerbsd.org (cschmidt@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by carbon.slackerbsd.org (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g3A9vlsc013753 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 09:57:47 GMT (envelope-from cschmidt@slackerbsd.org) Received: (from cschmidt@localhost) by carbon.slackerbsd.org (8.12.2/8.12.2/Submit) id g3A9vkoU013752 for cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 09:57:46 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: carbon.slackerbsd.org: cschmidt set sender to cschmidt@slackerbsd.org using -f Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 05:57:46 -0400 From: Carl Schmidt To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/bin Makefile src/share/examples/etc make.conf src/usr.bin Makefile Message-ID: <20020410095746.GA11336@carbon.slackerbsd.org> Reply-To: Carl Schmidt Mail-Followup-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG References: <200204091825.g39IPlu47806@freefall.freebsd.org> <20020410115605.M64464-100000@news1.macomnet.ru> <20020410081359.GD98684@sunbay.com> <20020410023316.A58709@dragon.nuxi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020410023316.A58709@dragon.nuxi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:33:17AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 11:13:59AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > > What about the next patch for make.conf(5): > ... > > Yes please. > > Seriously, I would like to see more discussion on this. I was serious > aboiut where do we stop? NO_LS? You stop when you get to the point of NO_LS. One could say that this spawns from the lack of fine-grained "automated" control over what gets installed. However something such as this is useful for at least this one reason: schg. Some, if not all (I don't recall), of the 'r' commands are installed with chflags schg and this causes a problem for people running in securelevel > 0 because you can't chflags noschg a file with schg once securelevel is so high. You might argue the need to remove binaries at all from the base system and I would argue that userland pollution is annoying and if there is a binary installed which I don't need, it will be removed. The inability of rm'ing a schg'ed binary is annoying and having to go to single user mode just to do it is even more annoying. So when you have a group of commands, such as NO_UUCP, I would say it is okay. If you get down to disabling one command with NO_WHATEVER, I would say it is probably, though not definitely, something to really care about. I agree with the change. -- Carl Schmidt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message