On Wednesday 12 January 2011 09:51:57 walter harms wrote: > > Am 11.01.2011 15:25, schrieb Tito: > > form libbb.h > > > > #define bb_path_passwd_file "/etc/passwd" > > #define bb_path_shadow_file "/etc/shadow" > > #define bb_path_gshadow_file "/etc/gshadow" > > #define bb_path_group_file "/etc/group" > > > > from pwd_grp.c > > > > #ifndef _PATH_SHADOW > > #define _PATH_SHADOW "/etc/shadow" > > #endif > > #ifndef _PATH_PASSWD > > #define _PATH_PASSWD "/etc/passwd" > > #endif > > #ifndef _PATH_GROUP > > #define _PATH_GROUP "/etc/group" > > #endif > > > > > > the paths are defined in multiple places and > > with CONFIG_USE_BB_PWD_GRP=y > > if you change them in libbb.h > > the changes are not honoured in pwd_grp.c > > SHould be consistent and defined in only one file > > for example for testing purposes on local files like: > > > > #ifdef DEBUG_PWD_GRP > > #define bb_path_passwd_file "./passwd" > > #define bb_path_shadow_file "./shadow" > > #define bb_path_gshadow_file "./gshadow" > > #define bb_path_group_file "./group" > > #else > > #define bb_path_passwd_file "/etc/passwd" > > #define bb_path_shadow_file "/etc/shadow" > > #define bb_path_gshadow_file "/etc/gshadow" > > #define bb_path_group_file "/etc/group" > > #endif > > > > Denys what you think about that? > > > > Ciao, > > Tito > > Having path at two places this is clearly not clever. But since it > will touch other tools too (crontab/crond come to my mind) it may be > better to have one file for all. > Unfortunately that means to replicate paths.h. > > re, > wh > > >
Thinking more about it this makes sense only if we use CONFIG_USE_BB_PWD_GRP=y as when linking with a standard libc it will have it own definitions _PATH_SHADOW etc. I think we should drop bb_path_*_file and use _PATH_* instead and only define them in case they are missing. Looks like a more consistent solution. Ciao, Tito _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
