Re: Should we implement a /etc/profile.d?
On May 1, Lars Wirzenius wrote
> [ Please don't Cc: public replies to me. ]
> > 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
> 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.
I just checked on a standard Redhat installation in our department and
there were only two scripts in profile.d:
mh.sh and mh.csh ;-)
I don't think it's worth the trouble and even Redhat doesn't seem to
use it extensively.
PS.: 7 messages from Lars on one day, seems like Lars is back ;-)
Christian Meder, email: firstname.lastname@example.org
What's the railroad to me ?
I never go to see
Where it ends.
It fills a few hollows,
And makes banks for the swallows,
It sets the sand a-blowing,
And the blackberries a-growing.
(Henry David Thoreau)
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .