.bash_profile, the empty /etc/skel, and the first user
- To: Debian developers list <email@example.com>
- Subject: .bash_profile, the empty /etc/skel, and the first user
- From: Santiago Vila Doncel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 17:18:30 +0100 (MET)
- Message-id: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961215165925.2322B-100000@rosa>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
(1) Does anybody knows why .bash_profile has to be totally empty?
Yes, I know that policy manuals says /etc/skel should be as empty as
possible, but I think that this:
if [ -f ~/.bashrc ]; then
would be much better for a "neutral" .bash_profile.
(This would make questions like "why my bash aliases do not work in X?"
(2) If /etc/skel will continue to be totally empty, installation disks
may ask a simple yes|no question when creating the first "normal" user.
Otherwise this new user will inherit the empty /etc/skel, and one would
have to configure properly both sets of dot files, the one in /etc/skel
and the one in /home/newuser. I don't see this as being sensible.
(3) I don't understand the policy of having /etc/skel totally empty.
This contradicts another policy saying that things should be in the best
I think policy manual contradicts itself, because it says:
a) User is so stupid that we must force him/her to create a new user
because otherwise he would do all ordinary things as root.
b) User is so clever that he/she will know how to properly configure a
good /etc/skel directory without any advice of any kind.
See what I mean?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Santiago Vila <email@example.com>
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com