Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 07:50:10 +0100 From: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steveo@eircom.net> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: louie@TransSys.COM, current@FreeBSD.org, n@nectar.com Subject: Re: /etc/shells #include syntax support patch Message-ID: <20010129075010.67f1c27f.steveo@eircom.net> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.010128221929.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <200101290453.f0T4roq13148@whizzo.transsys.com> <XFMail.010128221929.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 22:19:29 -0800 (PST) John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: JB> People whine about the problem though, so having no solution doesn't JB> help either. Since #include is syntatically a comment, it shouldn't JB> mess up other programs, though the idea is that they will all use the JB> API in libc and not be reading the file themselves. However, I do JB> think that doing it through nsswitch might be the best solution. Everything in the tree uses the API apart from adduser.perl. Do many ports use /etc/shells ? On the security issue, I rather like the idea that a none root port administrator is possible, this doesn't really need multiple shells files though so nsswitch works for me. I can't set it up though (no -current box). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010129075010.67f1c27f.steveo>