At 8:48 AM -0500 8/18/99, David Scheidt wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 6:37 PM -0700 8/17/99, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> > If you removed the stat test, I would simply get rid of the -s
> > option entirely - require that all files be queued to the print
> > spool.
>
> The administration would kill me. I would prefer to avoid that.
>
> (note that the check isn't completely removed, it's "only" nullified
> for NFS-mounted files. We use AFS for most things here, so the vast
Couldn't you turn it off only for NFS mounted files?
I first took this to mean "turn off the security check", but now I see
it means "turn off the -s option". In thinking about this suggestion,
I think that as long as I allow-but-ignore the option for nfs files, it
might work out better than I initially thought it would. I don't want
to completely reject '-s' because they have that embedded in a lot of
scripts and canned procedures that I doubt they want to search for right
now. But just ignoring the option for NFS files might not be too bad.
I do keep thinking that they would have a fit if some 'lpr -s' didn't
work because it ran out of space to copy the file into the spool
directory. Still, I'll have to think about this some more. Thanks.
> Any advice on how to kick AIX so the st_dev+st_ino check will work
> right is also welcome. It baffles me why AIX does things the way it
> does. It kinda looks like the values it uses are pointers to some
The joke about AIX is that it was created by aliens who were given the
UNIX documentation, but no example system. I have seen very little
that suggests this to be untrue.
Everytime I start thinking "well AIX isn't TOO bad", something like
this comes along to remind me...
---
Garance Alistair Drosehn = g...@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or dro...@rpi.edu
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
