7;t already trusted.
>
> I agree, but still there is a difference in that the @{un,}exec stuff
> would always be run as root.
The majority (if not all) of things that run in @exec/@unexec *need*
to run as root in order to function correctly. Somebody who wants to
exercise this amount of control might be better served by building their
own packages from their own, maybe modified, ports tree.
Joachim Schipper wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:00:31AM +0300, Cem Kayali wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> -I If scripts exist for a given package, do not execute them.
>>
>>
>> This does not work... I will re-check, but "pkg_add -vvvI" shows that
>> scripts are exe
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:00:31AM +0300, Cem Kayali wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> -I If scripts exist for a given package, do not execute them.
>
>
> This does not work... I will re-check, but "pkg_add -vvvI" shows that
> scripts are executed.
>
>
> Well, one of my client
Regards,
Cem
patrick keshishian, 06/21/09 22:54:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Cem Kayali wrote:
Hello!
I'm trying to create some customised packages, and noticed that many ports
use exec/unexec. I did search through archives and found that, in 2007 Marc
Espie says;
http://ww
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Cem Kayali wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I'm trying to create some customised packages, and noticed that many ports
> use exec/unexec. I did search through archives and found that, in 2007 Marc
> Espie says;
>
>
> http://www.techtalkz.com/open
Hello!
I'm trying to create some customised packages, and noticed that many
ports use exec/unexec. I did search through archives and found that, in
2007 Marc Espie says;
http://www.techtalkz.com/openbsd/79003-post-install-script-execution-package.html
>But using @exec/@unexec is
6 matches
Mail list logo
