| 1 |
Could be /etc/env.d and env-update extended to support more things |
| 2 |
like aliases and shell functions? |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 7/16/05, Herbert Fischer <herbert.fischer@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> I meant... Isn't this directory subject to developers installing |
| 6 |
> custom .bashrc or .bash_profile, or whatever automatically executed on |
| 7 |
> login? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> On 7/16/05, Herbert Fischer <herbert.fischer@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 10 |
> > So... why /etc/.skel/ needs to be touched by Gentoo emerges? Isn't |
| 11 |
> > this directory subject to developers installing foo-bar.sh files? |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > So, isn't this case the same with /etc/profile.d ?? |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > On 7/16/05, Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> wrote: |
| 16 |
> > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400 |
| 17 |
> > > Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 18 |
> > > |
| 19 |
> > > > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is |
| 20 |
> > > > that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random |
| 21 |
> > > > Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with |
| 22 |
> > > > package app-crap/FooBar |
| 23 |
> > > |
| 24 |
> > > Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem? |
| 25 |
> > > |
| 26 |
> > > for x in $( < /etc/profile.d/.default); do |
| 27 |
> > > source "/etc/profile.d/${x}" |
| 28 |
> > > done |
| 29 |
> > > |
| 30 |
> > > That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if |
| 31 |
> > > users added it to the .default file. |
| 32 |
> > > |
| 33 |
> > > Marius |
| 34 |
> > > |
| 35 |
> > > -- |
| 36 |
> > > Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub |
| 37 |
> > > |
| 38 |
> > > In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be |
| 39 |
> > > Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. |
| 40 |
> > > |
| 41 |
> > > |
| 42 |
> > > |
| 43 |
> > |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives