Could be /etc/env.d and env-update extended to support more things
like aliases and shell functions?
On 7/16/05, Herbert Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I meant... Isn't this directory subject to developers installing
> custom .bashrc or .bash_profile, or whatever automatically executed on
> login?
>
> On 7/16/05, Herbert Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So... why /etc/.skel/ needs to be touched by Gentoo emerges? Isn't
> > this directory subject to developers installing foo-bar.sh files?
> >
> > So, isn't this case the same with /etc/profile.d ??
> >
> > On 7/16/05, Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> > > > that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
> > > > Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
> > > > package app-crap/FooBar
> > >
> > > Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
> > >
> > > for x in $( < /etc/profile.d/.default); do
> > > source "/etc/profile.d/${x}"
> > > done
> > >
> > > That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
> > > users added it to the .default file.
> > >
> > > Marius
> > >
> > > --
> > > Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
> > >
> > > In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
> > > Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
