Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:21:01 -0500 (EST)
> Garrett Wollman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> GW> <
>said:
> GW>
> GW> > The patch below (against 4-stable but it will probably apply easily
> GW> > to -current) moves /etc/shells to /usr/local/etc/shells.
> GW>
> GW> B
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 16:59:41 -0600
"Jacques A. Vidrine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
JV> I thought you might add it as a different source, so that it need not be
JV> the default.
As I read it that is still a complementary possibility. The nsdispatch
stuff could move the start point from
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 08:48:59PM +0100, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:17:22 -0600
> "Jacques A. Vidrine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JV> You could just use the nsdispatch() API that is in -CURRENT, and that
> JV> getusershell() uses.
>
> I'm not sure what for, the ch
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:17:22 -0600
"Jacques A. Vidrine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
JV> You could just use the nsdispatch() API that is in -CURRENT, and that
JV> getusershell() uses.
I'm not sure what for, the changes I've made fit just as smoothly
into _local_initshells as they do into in
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 01:57:40PM +0100, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
> Life is better than I thought the crypto stuff just has it as a fallback
> conditional on HAVE_GETUSERSHELL so that uses the one from libc. Which leaves
> only sendmail which is similar but for some reason does not have HA
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 00:27:13 -0800 (PST)
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
JB> How many contrib'd apps need to look at /etc/shells? The biggest one I think
JB> is sendmail, and Greg Shapiro is a very reasonable fellow, and can probably
JB> assist in getting sendmail at least to use the API
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 00:27:13 -0800 (PST)
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
JB> How many contrib'd apps need to look at /etc/shells? The biggest one I think
JB> is sendmail, and Greg Shapiro is a very reasonable fellow, and can probably
JB> assist in getting sendmail at least to use the AP
On 27-Jan-01 Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:13:42 -0800 (PST)
> John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> JB> 1) All parsing of /etc/shells should move off into libutil under a
> JB>suitable API.
>
> There is one in libc/gen that would do fine. The catch is th
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:13:42 -0800 (PST)
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
JB> 1) All parsing of /etc/shells should move off into libutil under a
JB>suitable API.
There is one in libc/gen that would do fine. The catch is that it
is not used everywhere and some of the code that
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
Louis A. Mamakos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
> I think that /etc/X11 which came along with the XFree86 4 port is a
> step in the right direction, too. Frankly, I'd rather have an /etc/local
> than /usr/local/etc for that sort configuration data so that it's in
> one place, and backed up along with
> Perhaps /etc/shells is the least of all evils here.
I think there's way too much paranoia about software systems putting
stuff into /etc. It intended to contain host-specific configuration data
I think there's value in having this configuration data in one or very
few places so you're n
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:21:01 -0500 (EST)
Garrett Wollman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
GW> <
said:
GW>
GW> > The patch below (against 4-stable but it will probably apply easily
GW> > to -current) moves /etc/shells to /usr/local/etc/shells.
GW>
GW> Bad idea. No base component (never mind libc!)
13 matches
Mail list logo
