Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I feel that the current /etc/profile or the future (if that plan is > commenced) /etc/profile does not do any service whatsoever since it > does not improve the situation.
> The policy's purpose should not to hinder development but guide it to > sensible direction that serves the Debian community, the end users. > What we need and what should have been done a long time ago, is to > modularize profile to /etc/profile.d/ where each program is resposible > for shipping reasonable defaults. Redhad has done this long time and > Cygwin does that too and it works very well. > This way all the other issues concerning configuration would be nicely > modularized. There would certainly be several packages that would > benefit from /etc/profile.d/ Please do not make the assumption that every shell reads /etc/profile or would read /etc/profile.d. Policy does not make that assumption; that's one of the major benefits of the approach currently in Policy. If there are problems internal only to the ksh/bash family of shells that would be solved by /etc/profile.d, it may still be a good idea to create /etc/profile.d for their internal use, but if other packages start putting things into /etc/profile.d assuming that they are then seen by all shells, it will break things quite badly and cause exactly the sort of problems that Policy was designed to protect against. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
