From: Michele Andreoli (m.andreoli@tin.it)
Date: Wed Aug 30 2000 - 20:40:24 CEST
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 03:48:36PM +0200, Dumas Patrice nicely wrote:
> Michele Andreoli a écrit :
>
> > Thank you: you explained the mistery. setup/local is somewhat singular,
> > because it allow to edit directly a file under control of Setup.
> > What happens if I add a store() call at the end of prepare() function?
>
> I think it should work. It will be really stored only if the user do a setup -s. It is
> also quite unorthodox ;-).
> The other possibility would be to edit directly the /setup/cnf/store/rc.local, but I
> think it's better to edit /etc/rc.local, because if the user edited rc.local
> previously, his changes wouldn't be removed... unless you want to avoid that ?
>
The perfect solution is to remove setup/local at all. But we are human, and
a less perfect solution is also ok :-)
Michele
-- I'd like to conclude with a positive statement, but I can't remember any. Would two negative ones do? -- Woody Allen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mulinux-unsubscribe@sunsite.auc.dk For additional commands, e-mail: mulinux-help@sunsite.auc.dk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 15:27:15 CET