Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/09/12/02:49:29
--=-ea8EWY622UVO3CzXd1Fw
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 10:10, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > Rule #1: The user knows better than the tool. If the user wants to fool
> > the script, they can, even with uname. If a user is doing that, assume
> > they have a reason and let them do it with grace.
> >
> > Rob
>=20
> True. Hey, I'm a control freak myself... I was not speaking against
> "fooling the script", I was just making an observation. However, the
> issue here is not the intentional "fooling" that you describe, but
> unintentional. It's much harder to do that with 'uname -s' than with an
> environment variable.
Ok, I mis-interpreted your intention.
=20
> Besides, why would anyone want to fool a post-install script?
> Mmm, I guess I could think of a few reasons, but then shouldn't all
> post-install scripts be susceptible to fooling in the same way, i.e.,
> "with grace"? Should this be documented somewhere?
I wasn't suggesting they *should* or *should not* be foolable. I was
really trying to say that the design should not be based on whether or
not a user can *intentionally* override something - because one way or
another the user can. The design should be whatever is:
* easy to maintain
* robust in the face of usual and common-unusual conditions.
Rob
--=-ea8EWY622UVO3CzXd1Fw
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQA9gDkEI5+kQ8LJcoIRAkshAKCwT8CJRTbGF4mv7l9HZZMnhhknCwCfR/eY
742c1yFeBiecCrcLZ1VA7dI=
=Q70b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-ea8EWY622UVO3CzXd1Fw--
- Raw text -