Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 01:59:07 -0700 (PDT) From: dima@best.net (Dima Ruban) To: pst@shockwave.com (Paul Traina) Cc: max@wide.ad.jp, dima@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-etc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc rc Message-ID: <199706250859.BAA16442@burka.rdy.com> In-Reply-To: <199706250722.AAA26789@precipice.shockwave.com> from Paul Traina at "Jun 25, 97 00:22:05 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Paul Traina writes: > Agreed, it's really nice to have rc.local be executed by a subshell that > cannot, under any circumstances, screw with stuff in /etc/rc. Please read my reply to Max's email and my reply to your next email. > > From: Masafumi NAKANE/=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQ2Y6LDJtSjgbKEI=?= <max@wide.ad.jp> > Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc rc > > dima 1997/06/24 20:12:13 PDT > > Modified files: > > etc rc > > Log: > > sh /etc/rc.local -> . /etc/rc.local > > > Revision Changes Path > > 1.130 +2 -2 src/etc/rc > > What's the advantage of the latter form over the former one? I can > only see disadvantage. > > What if rc.local exists but doesn't have execution bit set? Of course > you can change the test for rc.local to -x from -f. (If we keep this > sh /etc/rc.local -> ./etc/rc.local change, we at least need to make > this change to the test for rc.local, I believe.) But if you are not > careful enough, there are good possibility that you think rc.local > gets executed if it's present. > > Cheers, > Max > > -- dima
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199706250859.BAA16442>