Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 09:32:57 +0100 From: nik@iii.co.uk To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@backplane.com>, Joseph Koshy <jkoshy@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, committers@hub.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc make.conf Message-ID: <19980827093257.A12452@iii.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199808270509.WAA11055@apollo.backplane.com>; from Matthew Dillon on Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 10:09:02PM -0700 References: <199808270509.WAA11055@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 10:09:02PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :If we need to do active things like checking for an additional "local" files
> :then it is better done from a top level makefile.
>
> Hmm.. ok, works for me. Anyone have any objections to having sys.mk
> check for an /etc/make.conf.local after /etc/make.conf ?
I'd prefer it look for /usr/local/etc/make.conf. I like /etc to be as
close to the original installation as possible.
Or, perhaps have it look for both?
Since we're here, the same functionality for /etc/{daily,weekly,monthly}
would be nice (I'll cheerfully commit that change if no one objects). I
think the only two .local files that *have* to live in /etc are rc.local
and rc.conf.local, all the others could come from /usr/local/etc.
With these changes, perhaps a lot of the files in /etc could be installed
noschg, with a comment at the top to indicate that, yes, root can edit
these files, but it's probably easier to create a '.local' or /usr/local/etc
equivalent file and edit that instead. That's probably deviating too far
from POLA though.
Thoughts?
N
--
--+==[ Nik Clayton becomes Just Another Perl Contractor in 16 days. ]==+--
She's still dead. Deal with it.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980827093257.A12452>