Subject: Re: packages writing files out of LOCALBASE
To: James K. Lowden <jklowden@schemamania.org>
From: Julio Merino <jmmv@menta.net>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 11/02/2002 18:03:34
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002 11:47:42 -0500
"James K. Lowden" <jklowden@schemamania.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 23:18:52 +0100, Julio Merino <jmmv@menta.net> 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.

> 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/) <jmmv@menta.net>