Subject: Re: packages writing files out of LOCALBASE
To: James K. Lowden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Julio Merino <email@example.com>
Date: 11/02/2002 18:03:34
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002 11:47:42 -0500
"James K. Lowden" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 23:18:52 +0100, Julio Merino <email@example.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> 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.
No. packages get installed into a default prefix, which is /usr/pkg or
/usr/X11R6. No package can be installed anywhere else. This is... well...
inconsistant. If you really want bash in /usr/bin, just go and copy it there,
or set your package installation base to /usr.ç
> 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.
The administrator will notice the message. IIRC, if you do not add bash to
/etc/shells, chsh will fail if you try to use bash. An administrator must
know how to install shells, and if he doesn't, MESSAGE will tell it.
Julio Merino (http://jmmv.dyndns.org/) <firstname.lastname@example.org>