Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 02:27:45 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@citusc.usc.edu> To: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net> Cc: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org>, Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, Marius Bendiksen <mbendiks@eunet.no>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc inetd.conf Message-ID: <20001012022745.A10462@citusc17.usc.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0010120151210.623-100000@sasami.jurai.net>; from winter@jurai.net on Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:55:55AM -0400 References: <20001012003552.A49482@mithrandr.moria.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0010120151210.623-100000@sasami.jurai.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:55:55AM -0400, Matthew N. Dodd wrote: > Is there any reason all of this security stuff can't be relegated to a > package? Seems like it would be much better than constantly hacking on > sysinstall and the ability to have interactive packages does exist I > believe. Interactive packages work poorly with sysinstall - they're displayed on another vty, and the user has no indication of this. It's becoming more and more of a problem as packages gain interactive security warnings/installation confirmations/license agreements/etc, for example. :-( Kris To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001012022745.A10462>