On Feb 27 08:09, Dirk Fassbender wrote: > Am 27.02.2014 01:45, schrieb Jim Burwell: > >On 2/26/2014 16:29, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >>On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 07:26:59PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >>>The common case would be for a shell to show up in /etc/shells. Under > >>>Fedora adds the shell to /etc/shells when the shell package is > >>>installed. I don't see any reason for us to do anything different. > >>Rephrasing that in English: > >> > >>Under Fedora, shells add themselves to /etc/shells file when they are > >>installed. > >> > >>cgf > >> > >>-- > >>Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html > >>FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ > >>Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html > >>Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple > >> > >Yep. At least for common shells. If someone is super security > >conscious, they can police their /etc/shells file. But the most common > >usage would be to simply allow a shell that's installed, since if a > >person installed a shell, you can safely presume they want to use it. > > > >-- > >Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html > >FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ > >Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html > >Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple > One remark about /etc/shells > The inetutils and inetutils-server packages comes with a file > /etc/defaults/etc/shells > and the postinstall scripts installs these file into /etc/shells.
Good hint. That's where I remember /etc/shells from. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
pgpJiTntoVSsb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
