> And how exactly are you going to tell /usr/bin/login, /usr/bin/chpass,
> /usr/local/bin/wu-ftpd, etc., where to find that file? Remember, if
> it's ports that read the setup file, it can be moved around anywhere
> by changing PREFIX -- but for files that are read by the system, it is
If it's P
Hi,
On 21 Feb, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>> I would be opposed to this for security reasons. The last thing I
>> want to see are /usr/local versions of /etc/ files related to security.
>
> Could you explain _why_? Is this just a matter of taste, or is there a
> concrete security concern in
* From: Will Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 01:47:30PM -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
* > P.S. /usr/local/etc/shells anyone? :)
And how exactly are you going to tell /usr/bin/login, /usr/bin/chpass,
/usr/local/bin/wu-ftpd, etc., where to find that file? Remember, if
i
On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:55:22 PST, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :As there becomes more ports around, this would simplify the job of
> :ports since we would now modify a ${PREFIX}-based file instead of
> :/etc/shells.
> I would be opposed to this for security reasons. The last thing I
> want
On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
> The /compat symlink should just die. compat bits should not be on the
> root partition, so why are we pretending? /usr/compat should be the only
> supported place. Peroid.
/compat is often a symlink or mount point, and "/" is a better place for
such
:On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 01:47:30PM -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
:> P.S. /usr/local/etc/shells anyone? :)
:
:I second this. As there becomes more ports around, this would simplify
:the job of ports since we would now modify a ${PREFIX}-based file
:instead of /etc/shells.
:
:--
:Will Andrews <[
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 01:47:30PM -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>
> You miss the point entirely.
Possibly.
> For others that's anywhere but since /usr is a comparatively small,
> read-only partition which they share amongst multiple boxes and they
> want the compat stuff to go in /usr/local/
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 01:47:30PM -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> P.S. /usr/local/etc/shells anyone? :)
I second this. As there becomes more ports around, this would simplify
the job of ports since we would now modify a ${PREFIX}-based file
instead of /etc/shells.
--
Will Andrews <[EMAIL PRO
> The /compat symlink should just die. compat bits should not be on the
> root partition, so why are we pretending? /usr/compat should be the only
> supported place. Peroid.
You miss the point entirely. Compat bits aren't intended for the root
partition, they're intended for wherever you happ
On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 08:31:06PM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> I wound up having to rm -rf /compat/linux and /usr/compat/linux and
> then doing the make install, which worked. It created /usr/compat/linux
> and didn't seem to care that no /compat/linux existed. However,
> o
]
Subject: Re: Installing linux_base 6.1
:> I am currently having a problem installing linux_base, both the port and
the
:> package on -current. I used to lurk to discover these problems by
browsing
:> the mailing list, but they are down. :-(
:>
:> I just cvsupped and rebuilt the wor
:> I am currently having a problem installing linux_base, both the port and the
:> package on -current. I used to lurk to discover these problems by browsing
:> the mailing list, but they are down. :-(
:>
:> I just cvsupped and rebuilt the world today and it still fails. Here are the
:> messages:
> I am currently having a problem installing linux_base, both the port and the
> package on -current. I used to lurk to discover these problems by browsing
> the mailing list, but they are down. :-(
>
> I just cvsupped and rebuilt the world today and it still fails. Here are the
> messages:
Yes,
13 matches
Mail list logo
