Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>