Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 00:22:05 -0700 From: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com> To: Masafumi NAKANE/=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQ2Y6LDJtSjgbKEI=?= <max@wide.ad.jp> Cc: dima@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-etc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc rc Message-ID: <199706250722.AAA26789@precipice.shockwave.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 Jun 1997 13:17:55 %2B0900." <199706250417.NAA04993@bourbon.sfc.wide.ad.jp>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Agreed, it's really nice to have rc.local be executed by a subshell that
cannot, under any circumstances, screw with stuff in /etc/rc.
From: Masafumi NAKANE/=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQ2Y6LDJtSjgbKEI=?= <max@wide.ad.jp>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc rc
> 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
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199706250722.AAA26789>