At 10:12 AM +0100 7/31/04, Rob MacGregor wrote: > > -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org >> [mailto:owner-freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org] On Behalf Of >> Oliver Eikemeier >> > > I don't think so. The patch is completely backwards compatible, > > which means everything will run as it did before. Why should > > anyone be confused by that? > >However, everybody who's used to disabling scripts by changing >the name such that it doesn't end in .sh is going to be badly >bitten by this. Suddenly all those "disabled" startup scripts >will run. > > > As stated above: everything users did before will continue to > > work. > >Except of course, disabling scripts by renaming them :) I seem to remember that the safe way to disable scripts was to change the permissions on them so they were not executable. This was considered better than renaming them, because the file remained at the location it was installed at. This meant it would still be removed if the package was removed, for instance. Is that no longer true? -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad_at_gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad_at_freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih_at_rpi.eduReceived on Sat Jul 31 2004 - 09:06:28 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:04 UTC