Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 15:54:33 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexander Langer <alex@big.endian.de> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc rc Message-ID: <20010924155433.A27017@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20010924225049.A958@zerogravity.kawo2.rwth-aachen.d>; from alex@big.endian.de on Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 10:50:49PM %2B0200 References: <200109241817.f8OIHBM06001@freefall.freebsd.org> <20010924225049.A958@zerogravity.kawo2.rwth-aachen.d>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 10:50:49PM +0200, Alexander Langer wrote: > Thus spake David E. O'Brien (obrien@FreeBSD.org): > > > Back out rev 1.274. The previous behavior was documented in rc.8 and > > the original commit of local_startup depended on the scripts being > > executable; so there is too much precedence to change it now. About all > > anyone could agree on is that rev 1.274 broke POLA and before rev 1.274 > > also broke POLA. > > What about test(1)ing with -x if the file is executeable and then > call /bin/sh to execute it. Seems to be the most logical behaviour > to me and satifies both revs. Huh? What is different between ``./foo.sh'' and ``sh foo.sh'' when foo.sh is excutable? The reason to use `ss' to run `foo.sh' is that foo.sh does not then need to be executeable. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010924155433.A27017>