Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 13:42:17 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d scripts inports (without touching localpkg) Message-ID: <p06110422bd318997b959@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <BA08DC36-E2ED-11D8-9C56-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> References: <BA08DC36-E2ED-11D8-9C56-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 2:32 PM +0200 7/31/04, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: >Garance A Drosihn wrote: > >>> > As stated above: everything users did before will >>> > continue to work. >>> >>>Except of course, disabling scripts by renaming them :) >> >>I seem to remember that the safe way to disable scripts was >>to change the permissions on them so they were not executable. >>This was considered better than renaming them, because the >>file remained at the location it was installed at. This >>meant it would still be removed if the package was removed, >>for instance. >> >>Is that no longer true? > >No, that is probably the best solution. But a) [...] >It will be not easy, and error-prone to hunt all those instances >down. Of course it's doable, and would be somewhat `cleaner', but >I believe it's better when we keep the previously documented >behaviour as far as possible. That is okay by me. I was mainly wondering if it still true that a person can disable a new-style script by changing the permissions on it, after the script has been installed. Just curious. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06110422bd318997b959>