At 8:48 AM -0500 8/18/99, David Scheidt wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>
> > At 6:37 PM -0700 8/17/99, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> > > If you removed the stat test, I would simply get rid of the -s
> > > option entirely - require that all files be queued to the print
> > > spool.
> >
> > The administration would kill me. I would prefer to avoid that.
> >
> > (note that the check isn't completely removed, it's "only" nullified
> > for NFS-mounted files. We use AFS for most things here, so the vast
>
>Couldn't you turn it off only for NFS mounted files?
I first took this to mean "turn off the security check", but now I see
it means "turn off the -s option". In thinking about this suggestion,
I think that as long as I allow-but-ignore the option for nfs files, it
might work out better than I initially thought it would. I don't want
to completely reject '-s' because they have that embedded in a lot of
scripts and canned procedures that I doubt they want to search for right
now. But just ignoring the option for NFS files might not be too bad.
I do keep thinking that they would have a fit if some 'lpr -s' didn't
work because it ran out of space to copy the file into the spool
directory. Still, I'll have to think about this some more. Thanks.
> > Any advice on how to kick AIX so the st_dev+st_ino check will work
> > right is also welcome. It baffles me why AIX does things the way it
> > does. It kinda looks like the values it uses are pointers to some
>
>The joke about AIX is that it was created by aliens who were given the
>UNIX documentation, but no example system. I have seen very little
>that suggests this to be untrue.
Everytime I start thinking "well AIX isn't TOO bad", something like
this comes along to remind me...
---
Garance Alistair Drosehn = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
