On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 07:33:03PM +0400, Andrey Chernov wrote: > On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 06:19:44PM +0300, Mike Makonnen wrote: > > scripts that have a .sh, and those that don't. If you really want > > your script to be sourced in the same shell, then you give it a > > .sh extension. Otherwise, it will be sourced in a subshell. So, when > > It can make things even worse, what if someone rename his rc.subr-ed > script.sh to script.sh.old ? It was common practice in the past to not > execute anything without .sh at all. I think I already answered this in a previous thread, but here goes again. If it is an old style script (not rc.d) then it gets executed only if it has a .sh extension and it is executable. That has NOT changed. If it is an rc.d script then it gets executed only if the appropriate foo_enable knob is turned on. Cheers. -- Mike Makonnen | GPG-KEY: http://www.identd.net/~mtm/mtm.asc mtm_at_identd.net | Fingerprint: AC7B 5672 2D11 F4D0 EBF8 5279 5359 2B82 7CD4 1F55 mtm_at_FreeBSD.Org| FreeBSD - Unleash the Daemon !Received on Sat Jul 31 2004 - 13:44:07 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:04 UTC