Re: Anybody working on removing sendmail from base?

[Sander Vesik <sander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris Pressey <cpressey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:47:44 -0600
> Mike Porter <mupi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> As I said before, I don't see the point/need to make a program
>> 'unavailable' to a user (in any sense except that typing, for example,
>> 'gcc --version' will result in a different value).
> 
> What if I have users that I don't want to run gcc at all?  Granted,
> today I would set up groups and make gcc group-executable only - but
> this VFS-viewfs way seems much more elegant, because they wouldn't even
> have to know gcc exists.

If a variant symlink uses an unset variuable then the lookup probably fails.

I mean - you could probably do defaulting (say using ${VARNAME:default} 
instead of ${VARNAME} or something), do we want this? For that matter,
*what* should the variant symlinks precicely do? Can $VARNAME contain 
say "../lib/somepath/../lib2" ? 

> -Chris

-- 
	Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++