Re: Proposal: /etc /usr/etc /usr/local/etc
On Sun, 6 Jul 1997, Yann Dirson wrote:
> Vadim Vygonets writes:
> > 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...
> Just a matter of taste, as it seems: (a) it seems to me quite elegant,
> (b) why does it disturb you to change libc ? it always evolve; it's
> just natural IMO (c) and so ? let's make it a cpp macro... if we make
> it at all ;)
If we add it into libc, we'll lose the compatibility with other
Unices. Making it a macro is really a good idea I didn't think of.
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 .