Adam P. Harris writes ("Re: Bug#19691: lprng: include a PATH= statement in the
init.d script "):
...
> Hmm. I kinda agree. I don't think init scripts should mess with PATH.
> Unless they have unique requirements. I think generally the init scripts
> should assume th
[You (Sven Rudolph)]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Package: lprng
>> Version: 3.4.2-1
>>
>> to make sure /sbin and /usr/sbin is in the PATH
>> (which might not be with some administrate accounts,
>> that su to root to start the spooler).
>
>Some /etc/init.d/ scripts (re)set PATH; others don'
On Mar 22, Sven Rudolph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Some /etc/init.d/ scripts (re)set PATH; others don't. I think we need
>a policy decision here.
Why do you think it is a problem?
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: lprng
> Version: 3.4.2-1
>
> to make sure /sbin and /usr/sbin is in the PATH
> (which might not be with some administrate accounts,
> that su to root to start the spooler).
Some /etc/init.d/ scripts (re)set PATH; others don't. I think we need
a policy deci
4 matches
Mail list logo
