From owner-freebsd-current Sun Jan 28 17: 2:45 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from gw.nectar.com (gw.nectar.com [208.42.49.153]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27F8A37B6A6 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:02:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by gw.nectar.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 116D319404; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 19:02:28 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 19:02:27 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" To: Steve O'Hara-Smith Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /etc/shells #include syntax support patch Message-ID: <20010128190227.B25222@spawn.nectar.com> References: <20010128101349.2c94539f.steveo@eircom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010128101349.2c94539f.steveo@eircom.net>; from steveo@eircom.net on Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 10:13:49AM +0100 X-Url: http://www.nectar.com/ Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 10:13:49AM +0100, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: > Hi, > > Asbestos suit on, round two. > > The patch below changes getusershell to support a #include syntax > in /etc/shells. I guess this is what I object to. I don't particularly like having a new directive in a configuration file which lots of applications read directly. I would rather that a separate configuration file be read, for example, with a list of shells(5) format files to consult. In current, this could be an optional thing, activated in nsswitch.conf, e.g. make a ports source for shells, and activate it with: shells: files ports or whatever you would like to call the source. -- Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / jvidrine@verio.net / nectar@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message