On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 01:10:32AM -0700, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote:
>
>> differences are 1) entries in inetd.conf are sample entries only, 2)
>> ports have no way of adding those entries to inetd.conf themselves
>> (since touching /etc is illegal).
>
> Uh, you're contradicting yourself. Touching /etc is not illegal.
Well, ok, the word "illegal" was a little strong.
However, this is a long-standing policy from at least 1995/6.
See the following relevant message-IDs:
199509201159.eaa04...@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu
You state that touching /etc is "hardly sacred" but that it
is wise to avoid it due to the large contingent of people who
feel strongly against it. The contingent of people appears
to have included markm and ollivier, but not Terry Lambert who
advocated "templating" so that ports could modify /etc but
still have a read-only root fs. I could not find the previous
discussion you refer to -- it was probably only in -hackers and not
-ports).
gdcvv0n...@ache.dialup.ru
A reference to the ultimate goal of switching /etc to be
read-only is made by ache. [It does not appear he agreed with
the "large contingent" mentioned above, though].
199601221813.taa04...@keltia.freenix.fr
A reference to the policy of not allowing ports to touch /etc
is made by ollivier. I believe this is the message that I
read and remembered.
I suppose I could have chosen a wimpier word than "illegal", but
we have tried to avoid schmucking with /etc for quite a while... I
believe this is a good thing to avoid.
> Besides those that add uid/gids, most shell ports add entries to
> /etc/shells.
Yes, I know that. :-)
--
This is my .signature which gets appended to the end of my messages.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
