On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 11:47:19 -0500 (CDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Sorry, maybe it didn't have to be said. I tried, though, I did.
--
Frank Mayhar [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.g
Sigh, that's what I get for editing before I finish writing.
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 12:44:45PM -0500, Craig Boston wrote:
> It's a very remote chance yes, but why
...but why take that chance when mkdir works perfectly fine? Chances
are mkdir will be used at some point during the rc.d startup a
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 11:47:19AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Well these notions have nothing todo with the way it works, but they are
> interesting still. I would imagine a dir could be linked too if somebody
> managed to insert a rc.d script in that was ordered sufficiently early
> enough
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 11:47:19AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 11:37:05PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Howdy hackers,
> >>
> >> I'm sorry for the previous patch, so here is at least one item that
> >> really
> >> bugs me that isn't obfuscation. In short, I do
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 11:37:05PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Howdy hackers,
>>
>> I'm sorry for the previous patch, so here is at least one item that
>> really
>> bugs me that isn't obfuscation. In short, I don't see any reason to fork
>> some process to simply "touch" a file (is a files
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 02:38:36PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On 2005-08-02 14:05, Vasil Dimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 12:33:48PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> >>On 2005-08-02 09:29, Vasil Dimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *)
> - if (/bin/m
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 04:08:12PM +0300, Vasil Dimov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 01:15:35PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 02:06:32PM +0300, Vasil Dimov wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 12:52:34PM +0200, Dario Freni wrote:
> > > > Vasil Dimov wrote:
> > > > >
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 01:15:35PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 02:06:32PM +0300, Vasil Dimov wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 12:52:34PM +0200, Dario Freni wrote:
> > > Vasil Dimov wrote:
> > > > Even we can use
> > > > if [ -d /tmp -a -w /tmp ] ; then
> > > > or (w
On 2005-08-02 14:05, Vasil Dimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 12:33:48PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>>On 2005-08-02 09:29, Vasil Dimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*)
- if (/bin/mkdir -p /tmp/.diskless 2> /dev/null); then
- rmdir /tmp/.d
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 02:06:32PM +0300, Vasil Dimov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 12:52:34PM +0200, Dario Freni wrote:
> > Vasil Dimov wrote:
> > > Even we can use
> > > if [ -d /tmp -a -w /tmp ] ; then
> > > or (which is equivalent)
> > > if [ -d /tmp ] && [ -w /tmp ] ; then
> > > and save ex
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 12:52:34PM +0200, Dario Freni wrote:
> Vasil Dimov wrote:
> > Even we can use
> > if [ -d /tmp -a -w /tmp ] ; then
> > or (which is equivalent)
> > if [ -d /tmp ] && [ -w /tmp ] ; then
> > and save external commands (mkdir) execution and directory
> > creation/deletion at al
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 12:33:48PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On 2005-08-02 09:29, Vasil Dimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > --- /etc/rc.d/tmp.orig Mon Aug 1 23:20:24 2005
> > > +++ /etc/rc.d/tmp Mon Aug 1 23:22:07 2005
> > > @@ -48,8 +48,8 @@
> > > [Nn][Oo])
> > > ;;
>
Vasil Dimov wrote:
> Even we can use
> if [ -d /tmp -a -w /tmp ] ; then
> or (which is equivalent)
> if [ -d /tmp ] && [ -w /tmp ] ; then
> and save external commands (mkdir) execution and directory
> creation/deletion at all.
You can't use test -w here. The script is checking if there is a
read-o
On 2005-08-02 09:29, Vasil Dimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- /etc/rc.d/tmp.orig Mon Aug 1 23:20:24 2005
> > +++ /etc/rc.d/tmp Mon Aug 1 23:22:07 2005
> > @@ -48,8 +48,8 @@
> > [Nn][Oo])
> > ;;
> > *)
> > - if (/bin/mkdir -p /tmp/.diskless 2> /dev/null); then
> > -
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 11:37:05PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Howdy hackers,
>
> I'm sorry for the previous patch, so here is at least one item that really
> bugs me that isn't obfuscation. In short, I don't see any reason to fork
> some process to simply "touch" a file (is a filesystem wri
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 11:37:05PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm sorry for the previous patch, so here is at least one item that really
> bugs me that isn't obfuscation. In short, I don't see any reason to fork
> some process to simply "touch" a file (is a filesystem writable) when
> built-
All the while I point to code example of this exact same usage being
deployed in the system already, and in the same exact situation. I see no
reason why you must bikeshed on this. Correctness is always correct,
despite established bad'ism, and in this case I am carefull to use an
already approved
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 23:37:05 -0500 (CDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I grep'ed the entire rc.d dir, and found that the same technique is used
> elsewhere in accounting, and cleanvar. So I feel justified this time,
> although please review, and thanks for the look. While I understand the
> need to wan
Howdy hackers,
I'm sorry for the previous patch, so here is at least one item that really
bugs me that isn't obfuscation. In short, I don't see any reason to fork
some process to simply "touch" a file (is a filesystem writable) when
built-in shell i/o does this:
--- /etc/rc.d/tmp.orig Mon Aug 1
19 matches
Mail list logo
