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

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

>  But every maintainer would need to know other shells.

They can ask for help in debian-devel. Most stuff would be
trivial, anyway.

>  And... we could have a ~/.nodefprofile (?) so we:

That's what I meant when I said it was trivial. :)  It only gets
hairy if you want users to be able to allow some, but not all,
special setups, which is also a desireable feature.

>  e. g.: fileutils would set color settings for ls, less would set

Having ls output color settings by default is a bad idea, since
not everyone has a color-capable terminal. It requires an option
to enable it, i.e., you need an alias or shell function. It
is also debatable whether it makes the system much easier for
naive users -- in my experience (back when I was a teacher),
a largish number of people get confused when anything unusual
happens, and having some files be of different colors is unusual.

I don't know what LESSPIPE is (my less manual page doesn't know
it). Could you describe? (Just so that I can try to shoot it
down. :-)

>  So.. what should we do?

Make sure programs work without special setup.

>  I'd say that all sh-like shells should be grouped.. and we should require
> only basic sh syntax...

But that would prevent us from setting up a nice prompt. Not
good enough, if we're going to do this at all.

If someone wants to provide a nice setup for novices (which is
definitely a good thing to do), they can put it in a separate
package, and ask the sysadmin to install a suitable line in
/etc/profile (and /etc/csh.login, and other similar files). That
way, we can keep the base distribution clean. Even better,
when someone else wants to provide a Better Novice Environment,
they don't need to replace the base distribution.

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: pgpJwk3aE0vi8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: