Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:09:18 -0500 From: Chris Faulhaber <jedgar@fxp.org> To: opentrax@email.com Cc: dima@unixfreak.org, freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: docs/24364: I don't think so! Message-ID: <20010116080918.A66321@peitho.fxp.org> In-Reply-To: <200101161255.EAA01942@spammie.svbug.com>; from opentrax@email.com on Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 04:55:49AM -0800 References: <200101160450.f0G4o2E75582@freefall.freebsd.org> <200101161255.EAA01942@spammie.svbug.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 04:55:49AM -0800, opentrax@email.com wrote: > > > On 15 Jan, Dima Dorfman wrote: > > The following reply was made to PR docs/24364; it has been noted by GNATS. > > > > From: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> > > To: toor@nisser.com > > Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org > > Subject: Re: docs/24364: I don't think so! > > Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:48:52 -0800 > > > > > > > > >Number: 24364 > > > >Category: docs > > > >Synopsis: wrong description or rc.conf > > > > > > "FreeBSD now defaults to running ntalkd, comsat, and finger in a sandbox. Ano > > > ther program which may be a > > > candidate for running in a sandbox is named(8). The default rc.conf includes > > > the arguments necessary to run > > > named in a sandbox in a commented-out form. Depending on whether you are inst > > > alling a new system or upgrading" > > > > > > No it doesn't. O'Reilly's does, though. > > > > It does, but it isn't very clear about it: > > > > <quote rc.conf> > > # > > # named. It may be possible to run named in a sandbox, man security for > > # details. > > # > > named_enable="NO" # Run named, the DNS server (or NO). > > named_program="named" # path to named, if you want a different one. > > named_flags="" # Flags for named > > #named_flags="-u bind -g bind" # Flags for named > > <unquote> > > > > The last line is an example of how to run it in a sandbox. > > > Actually the "named_flags" are now in /etc/default/rc.conf, > so the documentation is incorrect in that we don't say where > "default rc" is. That is, one could assume 'default rc' to mean > the 'rc' that ships with the system. That is how I read it. > However, it *now* means the 'rc' in '/etc/'default' > It's a very minor doc'ing error, I should have caught it. > (Good work. Roelof. :-)) > No, 'default rc' != default rc.conf. And /etc/defaults/rc.conf (not /etc/default/rc.conf) is well documented in rc.conf(5) -- Chris D. Faulhaber - jedgar@fxp.org - jedgar@FreeBSD.org -------------------------------------------------------- FreeBSD: The Power To Serve - http://www.FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010116080918.A66321>