On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 04:40:06PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 11:01:22AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
And if it's a wrapper
script, wouldn't it be a lot better to have the wrapper in /usr/bin,
with the real program called something like foo.real, and just the
variable
Marc Haber wrote:
This is the way to do it for an init script. Is it OK to have a file
in /etc/default that does not provider defaults for an init script
but for an executeable called by users?
I don't know. I don't see a lot of advantage over just putting the
conffile in /etc.
There is
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 10:31:18AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Hi,
let's say I have a package foo with a binary foo. The author suggests
the one should have a shell script wrapper to be able to call the foo
binary with the appropriate options. I want to do so in my package.
- Have the
On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 08:43:56AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:12:19 +0100, Julian Gilbey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not just /etc/foorc or /etc/foo.conf or something like that?
Because the conffile is not a real conffile, but rather a shell
script being sourced in, and
On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 11:01:22AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
If you want to
make it clear that it's a Debian-specific thing, surely you can put a
note to that effect at the top of the file?
Never underestimate the user's stupidity.
I don't, but how will the location and user's (sysadmin's)
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 09:34:37 +0100, Julian Gilbey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because the conffile is not a real conffile, but rather a shell
script being sourced in, and /etc/foo.conf will probably suggest that
this conffile is an upstream feature.
When you say shell script, do you mean that it's
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:12:19 +0100, Julian Gilbey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not just /etc/foorc or /etc/foo.conf or something like that?
Because the conffile is not a real conffile, but rather a shell
script being sourced in, and /etc/foo.conf will probably suggest that
this conffile is an
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:17:01 +0100, Julian Gilbey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 11:01:22AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
And if it's a wrapper
script, wouldn't it be a lot better to have the wrapper in /usr/bin,
with the real program called something like foo.real, and just the
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:12:19 +0100, Julian Gilbey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not just /etc/foorc or /etc/foo.conf or something like that?
Because the conffile is not a real conffile, but rather a shell
script being sourced in, and /etc/foo.conf will probably suggest that
this conffile is an
On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 04:40:06PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 11:01:22AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
And if it's a wrapper
script, wouldn't it be a lot better to have the wrapper in /usr/bin,
with the real program called something like foo.real, and just the
variable
Marc Haber wrote:
This is the way to do it for an init script. Is it OK to have a file
in /etc/default that does not provider defaults for an init script
but for an executeable called by users?
I don't know. I don't see a lot of advantage over just putting the
conffile in /etc.
There is
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 10:31:18AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Hi,
let's say I have a package foo with a binary foo. The author suggests
the one should have a shell script wrapper to be able to call the foo
binary with the appropriate options. I want to do so in my package.
- Have the
Hi,
let's say I have a package foo with a binary foo. The author suggests
the one should have a shell script wrapper to be able to call the foo
binary with the appropriate options. I want to do so in my package.
- Have the foo-Binary in /usr/lib/foo/foo
- Have a foo shell script wrapper in
13 matches
Mail list logo
