On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 10:31:18AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> let's say I have a package foo with a binary foo. The author suggests
> the one should have a shell script wrapper to be able to call the foo
> binary with the appropriate options. I want to do so in my package.
>
> - Have the foo-Binary in /usr/lib/foo/foo
> - Have a foo shell script wrapper in /usr/bin/foo
> - /usr/bin/foo sources /etc/default/foo so that the admin can change
> the default values without interfering with the wrapper itself.
>
> This is the way to do it for an init script. Is it OK to have a file
> in /etc/default that does not provider defaults for an init script
> but for an executeable called by users?
Why not just /etc/foorc or /etc/foo.conf or something like that? I
don't know if it's such a great idea to pollute the /etc/default
namespace, and it's not intuitive.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
