<<On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 19:02:27 -0600, "Jacques A. Vidrine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I would rather that a separate configuration file be read, for example, > with a list of shells(5) format files to consult. I would rather have a single file, located in a directory intended for configuration files. Perhaps we could call it ``/etc/shells'' which seems to be popular. There is no inherent virtue in having (some subset of) configuration files on every partition. -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
- Re: /etc/shells #include syntax support patch Louis A. Mamakos
- Re: /etc/shells #include syntax support patch John Baldwin
- Re: /etc/shells #include syntax support patch Steve O'Hara-Smith
- Re: /etc/shells #include syntax support patch Steve O'Hara-Smith
- Re: /etc/shells #include syntax support patch Matt Dillon
- Re: /etc/shells #include syntax support patch Vadim Belman
- Re: /etc/shells #include syntax support patch Dag-Erling Smorgrav
- Re: /etc/shells #include syntax support p... sig
- Re: /etc/shells #include syntax suppo... Mike Meyer
- Re: /etc/shells #include syntax ... Sean O'Connell
- Re: /etc/shells #include syntax support patch Garrett Wollman
- Re: /etc/shells #include syntax support patch Jacques A. Vidrine
- Re: /etc/shells #include syntax support patch Steve O'Hara-Smith
