Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:29:09 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Gregory Sutter <gsutter@zer0.org>, David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/nologin Makefile nologin.c nologin.sh Message-ID: <p06002025bbdf1c4bde92@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <20031117234947.GQ98272@klapaucius.zer0.org> References: <200311170639.hAH6dduA076667@repoman.freebsd.org> <200311171301.45679.wes@softweyr.com> <20031117234947.GQ98272@klapaucius.zer0.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 3:49 PM -0800 11/17/03, Gregory Sutter wrote: >On 2003-11-17 13:01 -0800, Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> wrote: > > > > I suppose adding the logging done by the sysutils/no-login > > port would make the program objectionably large. Sigh. > > Several times over the past five years I considering asking > > if we should just import my nologin and be done with it; > > each time I didn't pursue it because it wasn't worth the bikeshed. > >Wes's no-login port has been around for ages and works just great. >Please just import it instead of creating yet another version without >the logging capability of sysutils/no-login. Or add the syslog >functionality to the new program. Thanks. How much larger is the object-file for the no-login port compared to this minimal one? (particularly now that /sbin is dynamically linked). If Wes wants to import no-login, the syslog capability certainly seems worth a few extra bytes to me. And it seems reasonable to go with code which people have already been using for some time now. This would have been much more of a bikeshed back when it would have been comparing a sh-script to a statically-linked binary, but it doesn't seem like much of one now. (IMO) -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06002025bbdf1c4bde92>