Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 21:22:57 -0500 (CDT) From: Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> To: mph@astro.caltech.edu (Matthew Hunt) Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make world clobbers (was Re: some nice advice...) Message-ID: <199906190222.VAA05944@aurora.sol.net> In-Reply-To: <19990618135828.A28727@wopr.caltech.edu> from Matthew Hunt at "Jun 18, 1999 1:58:28 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> [ moving this to -ports from -security ... -mph ] > On Fri, Jun 18, 1999 at 03:45:25PM -0500, Joe Greco wrote: > > > strings /usr/local/sbin/gated | grep '^/' > > /var/db/%s.pid > > /var/run/%s.version > > /etc/%s.conf > > Just for the record, I would say that /etc/%s.conf is the only one > of the three which is "wrong", in the sense of "where ports are supposed > to put things". It should of course be $PREFIX/etc/%s.conf. There are lots of other instances of that sort of thing, although immediate examples elude me. > > I guess one could argue qpage either way; qpage puts its spool over in > > /var/spool/qpage and there isn't much you can configure about that. I > > probably wouldn't want that on a dedicated paging server. Fortunately > > I don't run one. > > Likewise, I don't think spool directories and so forth are supposed to > go under $PREFIX. For many systems, I agree. > I understand now that we have different ideas about what $PREFIX is > supposed to accomplish. You want literally everything relevant to > a port, including its PID files, spool directories, and other runtime > droppings, to go there, and that is not how we arrange things. I _may_ want that to happen. In particular, on a machine that I classify as an "application platform" of some sort, yes, I do want that to happen.... for the very simple and very basic reason that I will put the application on one drive and the OS on another, and both are on removable drive cartridges. And the OS will be protected in every way I know how, and should remain as close to that "FCS" or RELEASE-distribution as possible so that it is easier to do maintenance and detect intruders and stuff. I think it is unspeakably evil, in such an environment, to be mixing the server processes and the underlying OS platform because then it becomes so much harder to do things such as upgrades. Other people probably don't care. And that's fine too. The ports team has done a fine job of addressing this more likely scenario. I don't really expect them to make their paradigm fit mine, although it isn't going to cause me to complain if they do. :-) > Perhaps it would be good if maintainers of ports which needs spool > directories included a configuration parameter saying where they > should go: Maybe. Long term, I think it'd be more interesting, useful, and secure to work towards ports that used phk's jail code. Rather than worrying about how things are rooted in the common filesystem, it'd be nice to be able to say something like cd apache; make JAIL=true JAILDIR=/www install and have things installed under JAILDIR in whatever manner the port maintainer would like. This would be, of course, a completely separate filesystem in my paradigm ... :-) (Again, port guys, don't take this as negative criticism. We were discussing ports used in an environment I don't really expect the ports to work in). ... Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Greco - Systems Administrator jgreco@ns.sol.net Solaria Public Access UNIX - Milwaukee, WI 414/342-4847 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199906190222.VAA05944>