| 1 |
Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Friday 15 July 2005 09:25 pm, Michael Marineau wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>Does the risk of abuse outweigh the potential usefulness that much? My |
| 7 |
>>vote would be to do more of this sort of thing. Reducing the |
| 8 |
>>oppertunity for users to shoot themselves in the foot would be good. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> err i dont see what this topic has to do with baselayout's problems |
| 12 |
> with /etc/profile.d functionality |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is that |
| 15 |
> *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random Gentoo |
| 16 |
> developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with package |
| 17 |
> app-crap/FooBar |
| 18 |
> -mike |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I just ment that by providing profile.d (and similar things) would let |
| 21 |
users customize |
| 22 |
their profile without having to edit a gentoo installed file, making |
| 23 |
upgrades a bit |
| 24 |
easier. To prevent abuse perhaps portage could enforce a blacklist of |
| 25 |
locations that |
| 26 |
are reserved for users. (/root and /usr/local could also be |
| 27 |
blacklisted). But on the other |
| 28 |
hand profile.d isn't that big of an issue as users won't blow away |
| 29 |
their /etc/profile as long |
| 30 |
as they use etc-update properly. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Michael Marineau |
| 34 |
marineam@g.o |
| 35 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 36 |
Oregon State University |
Archives