On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 18:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I don't like the idea of having multiple files to turn off logins. (I > can't log into my system, and /etc/nologin doesn't exist! What? didn't you > know about this *other* file?) I also don't want to solve this with a > symlink.
Yes, let's try to depend as little as possible on symlink solutions. It seems reasonable to me that if logins can be locked out either variably (by a program) or non-variably (by the administrator) -- each way independently of the other -- then each should have its own "key" to the lock. Of course there are many ways to implement a shared lock. > I would favor (even though it's weird from the pan-unix admin point of > view) just deprecating /etc/nologin in favor of something more "sensible". So you would prefer it if /etc/nologin were simply replaced by, e.g., /run/nologin? > It would also be nice to have some blessing of /run in the policy first, > but that doesn't seem terribly likely. What is more important for now is whether there is broad enough agreement with the reasoning behind /run/. > These are not strongly held positions. Please do try to convince me to be > less of an obstruction I don't have strong views about the fate of nologin either... except that it should not be in /etc. Perhaps Jamie Wilkinson will have more to say on this subject. -- Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>