Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote:
>
>
> >If you call this a bug, when will the documentation (best practice) bug from
> >Indiana be fixed that is based on manually calling pfexec?
>
> I don't see a relation between the two. I'm not responsible for abuse of
> pfexec; we could remove pfexec with this case but I have decided not to do
> that.
Then let me try to start the discussion in a different way.
If you believe that implementing a way to switch the pfexec state in a shell
on/off while the shell is running, then the whole pfexec concept contains a bug.
This may be very easy be verified:
You can always call one of the /bin/pf*sh* and get the pfexec feature enabled
and you could terminate this shell whenever you like.
So implementing a way to switch on/off the pfexec feature in a running shell
just does the same in a more convenient way.
J?rg
--
EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
