On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:10:59AM -0500, James Carlson wrote:
> Ceri Davies writes:
> > Hmm, no, that's not what I was trying to do. I'm trying to avoid anyone
> > having a WTF? moment when they find yet another pathname for sendmail in
> > /usr/lib that it looks like they'll have to do something with.
>
> I think WTF moments are best handled with decent documentation.
No argument there.
> > I'm specifically trying to make it easy to swap out sendmail, and I
> > think that for anyone unaware of mailwrapper's presence that ls output such
> > as the following:
> >
> > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Nov 25 13:44 /usr/bin/mailq ->
> > ../sbin/mailwrapper
>
> I think the existing hard links function just fine.
Hard links can't really be used as people aren't supposed to install
their own stuff into /usr, apparently.
> As an architectural matter, I don't think that the readlink() contents
> of symlinks in /usr/bin should be considered to be "documentation" for
> the system. I understand what you're saying, and that it's an
> intentional kick in the seat to the admin, but I don't think that's
> the right way to do this.
You're probably right. If there are no objections, I can install the
mailwrapper binary at /usr/lib/sendmail.
What does that mean for the manpages, specifically wrt section numbers
for mailwrapper?
Ceri
--
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-arc/attachments/20081210/69b6c320/attachment.bin>
