Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:32:29 +0200 (SAT) From: John Hay <jhay@mikom.csir.co.za> To: DougB@gorean.org (Doug Barton) Cc: sheldonh@uunet.co.za (Sheldon Hearn), arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mergemaster: Change in description of envar handling Message-ID: <200006291832.e5TIWTW63381@zibbi.mikom.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <395B7CF2.AAFEAEB5@gorean.org> from Doug Barton at "Jun 29, 2000 09:44:34 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > No. I already conceded part of this point a while back when I developed > the .mergemasterrc mechanism so that people could specify their own PATH > (among other things), so there is already a way out of this for those > who are not interested in specifying the full path to their PAGER. I'm > definitely not going to support a text change which moves away from > encouraging "best practice." Can you tell me why it is good practise to use full paths for environment variables, because I don't understand it. I mean all the commands that I type follow the PATH variable to get to the command. Why should an command inside an environment variable be any different? I mean, if I'm root and I have a path to a directory that someone else than root has write access to, there are hundreds of other commands that I'm using that can be used to get root access. The same with if I'm a normal user and I have a path to a directory that someone other than me or root has write access to. John -- John Hay -- John.Hay@mikom.csir.co.za To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200006291832.e5TIWTW63381>