Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:19:31 -0700:
> While I would normally agree, there's nothing wrong with having sensible > defaults. After all, we install a bunch of stuff into /home/$user > thanks to /etc/skel, so how is this different? The big distinction (other than the privilege one) IMO is that putting things into /etc/skel isn't directly inserting them into a "live" user's home dir. There's a level of indirection, such that "live" users don't have their "live" environments interfered with, and such that there's a chance for the admin to review things if desired, before actually acting on anything in skel in terms of setting up a new user. IOW, a direct comparison would be if we setup something like /etc/rootskel/. Of course, that's not quite a correct parallel either, since it's not often that a new "root" user appears =8^P, but the point I'm trying to make by drawing the parallel should be obvious. Matter of fact, I'd rather /etc/profile was handled a bit more indirectly as well, say treating it much like /etc/make.conf, creating make.conf.example if the file already existed, or like the /usr/share/ baselayout/* files, as I handle the system profile rather differently here too, but that's a somewhat different argument as it's existing behavior (to some extent addressed with etc-update, but one could say so was fstab). At least we can avoid creating further problems of the sort we're avoiding with the above *.example and baselayout/* cases, however, as the current proposal would IMO do. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
