From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Mar 10 16:19:15 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.unixathome.org (ns1.unixathome.org [203.79.82.27]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2711137B719 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 16:19:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dan@langille.org) Received: from wocker (wocker.int.nz.freebsd.org [192.168.0.99]) by ns1.unixathome.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2B0JAw02897; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:19:11 +1300 (NZDT) (envelope-from dan@langille.org) Message-Id: <200103110019.f2B0JAw02897@ns1.unixathome.org> From: "Dan Langille" Organization: novice in training To: ports@freebsd.org Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:19:08 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: where to put tmp files for security/logcheck Reply-To: dan@langille.org Cc: dan@langille.org X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org It's come to my attention (thanks Mr Fenner) that security/logcheck creates /usr/local/etc/tmp for its own use but does not remove that directory when the port is deleted. 1 - I'm not so such I like the idea of a port creating such a directory. Why can't it just use /var/tmp like everyone else? This would also remove the need to create/remove a tmp directory. 2 - If I modify the port so it just removes /usr/local/etc/tmp when pkg_delete is called, what's the downside? Still, I don't like the idea of creating directories just for tmp files. 3 - I've msg'd the author off-list to see what he thinks of this change. -- Dan Langille pgpkey - finger dan@unixathome.org | http://unixathome.org/finger.php got any work? I'm looking for some. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message