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

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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to