Am 27.02.2014 01:45, schrieb Jim Burwell:
On 2/26/2014 16:29, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 07:26:59PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
The common case would be for a shell to show up in /etc/shells. Under
Fedora adds the shell to /etc/shells when the shell package is
installed. I don't see any reason for us to do anything different.
Rephrasing that in English:
Under Fedora, shells add themselves to /etc/shells file when they are
installed.
cgf
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Yep. At least for common shells. If someone is super security
conscious, they can police their /etc/shells file. But the most common
usage would be to simply allow a shell that's installed, since if a
person installed a shell, you can safely presume they want to use it.
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
One remark about /etc/shells
The inetutils and inetutils-server packages comes with a file
/etc/defaults/etc/shells
and the postinstall scripts installs these file into /etc/shells.
Regards
Dirk
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple