"Richard L. Hamilton" wrote: [Setting Reply-To: to [EMAIL PROTECTED] [snip] > In the case of /etc/hosts -> ./inet/hosts > I've seen lots of trouble from that, anytime someone > ran an editor on /etc/hosts that deletes and recreates > files rather than (like vi) writing over them. It got > to where the more senior admins had to put a script > out that saved off a copy, fixed the symlink, and > sent nasty email to the admin team. That _after_ > everyone had been told more than once to edit > /etc/inet/hosts, _not_ /etc/hosts. [snip]
Erm, that's an editor bug. You can always hit such issues in other context but (IMO) that doesn't make the concept of /etc/inet/ invalid (at some point it may be intersting to put things like /etc/hosts and other related *BSD symlinks into a seperate "SUNWoldbsdartifacts" package to (brand-)mark them as such). > This message posted from opensolaris.org ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Grumpf... sounds the "Jive" message board thing ignores Reply-To: headers... ;-( ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;) _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
