[504] in Release_7.7_team
Re: Three questions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Cattey)
Tue Apr 23 23:26:01 1996
Resent-From: Bill Cattey <wdc@MIT.EDU>
Resent-To: release-team@MIT.EDU
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 23:24:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bill Cattey <wdc@MIT.EDU>
To:
Cc: ghudson@MIT.EDU, miki@MIT.EDU, vrt@MIT.EDU, brlewis@MIT.EDU,
epeisach@MIT.EDU, Craig Fields <cfields@MIT.EDU>
Craig Fields raised three questions about possibly changing root's $path
to a small group of developers (whom I've CC'd this note to.)
My brain is slow and only this moment did I realize that the
release-team should consider its user-visible aspects. (As if we pay a
lot of attention to users logged in as root.)
Perhaps we should review these questions Thursday?
1. Should /srvd/patch be added to root's path?
2. Should . be removed from root's path?
3. Should root's path be made consistent between .cshrc and .profile?
Current consensus is:
1: Yes; there are several situations in which having /srvd/patch in
root's path would be valuble.
2: Yes
This has some user-visible consequences. I have vague recollections of
the discussion of whether . should be in athena-path, but only THAT
there was a discussion -- not the specifics.
3. Maybe; Greg Hudson points out:
Excerpts from mail: 22-Apr-96 Re: Three questions Greg Hudson@MIT.EDU (689)
> There is a certain value in having root's path not refer to any
> non-local directories when root's shell is /bin/sh, in case AFS is
> wedged or something. However, that's not the case right now; we'd have
> to get rid of a lot of paths. It also wouldn't buy us much unless we
> added something like BSD 4.4's "toor" account, which is root with
> /bin/sh as its shell.
-wdc
