Subject: Re: packages writing files out of LOCALBASE
To: None <email@example.com>
From: James K. Lowden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/02/2002 11:48:47
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 23:18:52 +0100, Julio Merino <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 14:00:25 -0800 (PST)
> "Jeremy C. Reed" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I forgot that bash2 package writes to /etc/shells.
> Or just avoid that bash2's package touches /etc/shells? It could tell in
> a MESSAGE file that the change is required, but leave it to the admin.
Please don't do that.
I read this list as a pkgsrc user who wants to become a smalltime
contributor (if I can ever understand it). I take it the motivation for
not writing to /etc/shells is security and/or portability. Convenience
Some packages, bash is one, should be considered extensions to the OS, not
applications. Really, I think it's a shame bash doesn't get installed
right into /usr/bin.
If the bash package doesn't update /etc/shells, and the installer doesn't
notice or act on MESSAGE, ftpd mysteriously denies access to any user for
whom bash is the default shell. It is possible to chase that relationship
down through the man pages (ftpd(8)->getusershell(3)->shells(5)), but
anyone who could do that would know to update /etc/shells.