Re: Proposal: /etc /usr/etc /usr/local/etc
On Fri, 4 Jul 1997, Yann Dirson wrote:
> Bill Mitchell writes:
> > On Fri, 4 Jul 1997, Vadim Vygonets wrote:
> > > It will (if it will exist) have one function:
> > > FILE *confopen(const char *path);
> > > It will just try to fopen /etc/path, if it fails -- fopen
> > > /usr/etc/path, if it fails, return NULL. Making a shared lib for it
> > > is ridiculous, as is adding it to libc *shrug*.
> I'm not sure here to understand what you mean anout libc.
I mean, don't make it a shared lib, because then it will require every
person who takes a program from debian, to get this lib, too. And
this function is too small to matter in the binary file. And libc
solution is even worse, because... Because it's (a) ugly and (b)
requires you to change libc and (c) this function is too trivial...
> > It sounds like this would reduce the chances of a persons with
> > debian systeng able to pick up linux-but-not-debian sources and
> > having them produce a functioning program with an out-of-the-box
> > compile.
> > I think we should avoid making debian a wierd variant of linux,
> > requiring debian-specific programming practices.
> This argument is IMHO in favour of inclusion of this hypothetical
> "confopen" into libc. I tend to support it, until further arguments...
Vadim Vygonets * email@example.com * firstname.lastname@example.org * Unix admin
The fish doesn't think, because the fish knows... everything.
-- Arizona Dream
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .