[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: .bash_profile, the empty /etc/skel, and the first user

[ Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list. ]

Santiago Vila Doncel:
> No, remember that /etc/skel is for *new* users, they do not have any setup
> to break. In other words: I don't want adduser command behaviour to change
> in a way that copies files in /etc/skel also to old users!

Um, I think I was under the impression that this would go into
/etc/profile, not /etc/skel/.bash_profile. I may be confusing myself
more than I thought. If it is in /etc/skel/.bash_profile, then the
user has the override (he can delete those lines). I'm not opposed
to the relevant maintainer adding the snippet in question.

> Maybe. But while it does not, what should we do?
> Are we really supposed to make a system with "good" defaults?

I think we should make a system with good defaults, but we
shouldn't create an administration hell while we're doing it. If
readline doesn't read /etc/readline.conf (or whatever), then
readline is broken and should be fixed. It should be trivial
to do, unless readline is written badly. (Needless to say, of
course, the changes should be sent upstream, so that Debian won't
forever have to maintain an incompatible version of readline.)

On a more general note, when a program is configurable, the
configuration info can come from four directions: the package
maintainer, other packages, the sysadmin, and the user. A
good configuration scheme allows all of these, although having
just a global and per-user configuration file is usually quite

Please read <http://www.iki.fi/liw/mail-to-lasu.html> before mailing me.
Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list.

Attachment: pgpRNHGtPAvAy.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: