Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:37:58 -0700 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: Steve O'Hara-Smith <steveo@eircom.net> Cc: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: patch for test: /etc/shells -> /usr/local/etc/shells Message-ID: <3A7331A6.BE5B27C7@softweyr.com> References: <20010126220820.2fa3265a.steveo@eircom.net> <200101262121.QAA02884@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <20010126223412.7eba6913.steveo@eircom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:21:01 -0500 (EST)
> Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> GW> <<On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 22:08:20 +0100, "Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steveo@eircom.net> said:
> GW>
> GW> > The patch below (against 4-stable but it will probably apply easily
> GW> > to -current) moves /etc/shells to /usr/local/etc/shells.
> GW>
> GW> Bad idea. No base component (never mind libc!) should hard-code a
> GW> pathname in /usr/local.
>
> I'll consider it flamed to death then :)
>
> It was intended to prevent port installs having to write in /etc
> without having to change libc/gen, roken and sendmail which I rather suspect
> is also a bad thing to do.
>
> Perhaps /etc/shells is the least of all evils here.
There is a difference between a port creating a config file in /etc, and a
port adding to a standard config file in etc. The former is a bad idea,
the latter necessary.
The other solution would be to allow a PATH of shells files, but that seems
rather messy for something this simple.
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/
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?3A7331A6.BE5B27C7>