From owner-cvs-etc  Wed Jun 25 01:59:59 1997
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-etc>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id BAA11747
          for cvs-etc-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 01:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from burka.rdy.com (dima@burka.rdy.com [205.149.163.30])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA11738;
          Wed, 25 Jun 1997 01:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by burka.rdy.com id BAA16442;
  (8.8.5/RDY) Wed, 25 Jun 1997 01:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199706250859.BAA16442@burka.rdy.com>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc rc
In-Reply-To: <199706250722.AAA26789@precipice.shockwave.com> from Paul Traina at "Jun 25, 97 00:22:05 am"
To: pst@shockwave.com (Paul Traina)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 01:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: max@wide.ad.jp, dima@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG,
        cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-etc@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Class: Fast
Organization: HackerDome
Reply-To: dima@best.net
From: dima@best.net (Dima Ruban)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-cvs-etc@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

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