Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:13:42 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steveo@eircom.net> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: RE: patch for test: /etc/shells -> /usr/local/etc/shells Message-ID: <XFMail.010126141342.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20010126220820.2fa3265a.steveo@eircom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26-Jan-01 Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Following some recent comments on the evil ways of ports have of
> writing in /etc on install -
This assumes that everyone uses /usr/local for ${LOCALBASE}, which is
not a good assumption to make. If you want to do this right, then ports
should modify ${LOCALBASE}/etc/shells, and a couple of things should
happen:
1) All parsing of /etc/shells should move off into libutil under a
suitable API.
2) The implementation of this API should allow for multiple files that it
checks. One way might be to add a '.include' keyword or something so
that /etc/shells could have '.include /usr/local/etc/shells' that the
admin could adjust should he/she choose to change ${LOCALBASE} to
something other than /usr/local.
This is more work than your patch, but this patch doesn't really solve
the problem, it merely moves it. It also breaks for ${LOCALBASE}
!= /usr/local, so I don't think it should go in.
My $.02.
--
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.010126141342.jhb>