| 1 |
On Saturday 16 July 2005 10:38 pm, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:22:29 -0400 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Saturday 16 July 2005 01:03 pm, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400 |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
> > > > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the |
| 10 |
> > > > point is that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont |
| 11 |
> > > > want random Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh |
| 12 |
> > > > into /etc/profile.d with package app-crap/FooBar |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > > Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem? |
| 15 |
> > > |
| 16 |
> > > for x in $( < /etc/profile.d/.default); do |
| 17 |
> > > source "/etc/profile.d/${x}" |
| 18 |
> > > done |
| 19 |
> > > |
| 20 |
> > > That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if |
| 21 |
> > > users added it to the .default file. |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > that kind of limits the intuitiveness of profile.d ... plus, not like |
| 24 |
> > they couldnt just do 'echo blah >> /etc/profile.d/.default' at the |
| 25 |
> > end of pkg_postinst or something |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> They could do the same to /etc/profile, no? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
yeah could which is why we could just do a QA smackdown on package maintainers |
| 30 |
who utilize /etc/profile.d ... |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
a quick grep shows that the following packages mention /etc/profile.d for some |
| 33 |
reason or another: |
| 34 |
dev-util/aegis (but it seems to correctly remove support) |
| 35 |
x11-base/xorg-x11 (no idea what it's trying to do with /etc/profile.d/xprint*) |
| 36 |
app-shells/bash-completion |
| 37 |
app-shells/tcsh |
| 38 |
-mike |
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives