Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 13:17:55 +0900 From: Masafumi NAKANE/=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQ2Y6LDJtSjgbKEI=?= <max@wide.ad.jp> To: dima@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: max@wide.ad.jp Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc rc Message-ID: <199706250417.NAA04993@bourbon.sfc.wide.ad.jp> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:12:14 -0700 (PDT)" References: <199706250312.UAA17480@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> dima 1997/06/24 20:12:13 PDT
> Modified files:
> etc rc
> Log:
> sh /etc/rc.local -> . /etc/rc.local
> Revision Changes Path
> 1.130 +2 -2 src/etc/rc
What's the advantage of the latter form over the former one? I can
only see disadvantage.
What if rc.local exists but doesn't have execution bit set? Of course
you can change the test for rc.local to -x from -f. (If we keep this
sh /etc/rc.local -> ./etc/rc.local change, we at least need to make
this change to the test for rc.local, I believe.) But if you are not
careful enough, there are good possibility that you think rc.local
gets executed if it's present.
Cheers,
Max
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199706250417.NAA04993>