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

Re: Should we implement a /etc/profile.d?



[ Please don't Cc: public replies to me. ]

=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?=:
>  I think we should just use the ". /etc/profile.d/*" approach. 

If that is used at all, then it should be some implementation of
". /etc/profile.d/*.<syntax>", just like Red Hat does (as we were
told). Also, there _must_ be a way for each user to allow them or
not.¹

But before we continue the discussion, perhaps someone could list
examples of what this would be used for, so that we can see if it
really would be useful. Otherwise this is just wishful thinking.

> If somebody uses a shell that doesn't allow environment variable 
> declaration in a standard/posic way... then that user is probably 
> somebody that can live without this feature.

Er, I don't think that is a good idea.

> and probably the other flavours I don't know much about... csh? ksh?

csh and tcsh do not understand Bourne shell syntax. ksh does. Of
course, there's minor deviations between all shells based on
the Bourne shell, meaning that, for example, a hypothetical
/etc/profile.d/fancy-bash-prompt would need a ".bash" as the
extension, so that only Bash would use it.

-- 
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.


¹ That's trivial to implement, at least.


Attachment: pgp6i4ikwudqV.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: