[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. ]

Raul Miller:
> Primary reason is to enable software contained in a package.  Cannonical
> example is to make sure path includes path needed by package in the
> set of directories checked for user executables.

Er, no, I think that is an extremely good example of what
should not go into /etc/profile.d. Packages should not rely on
a non-standard magic environment variable to work properly. If
they need binaries from outside the normal directories (/bin,
/usr/bin, /usr/local/bin) they should reference them explicitly,
because otherwise they will break if the PATH is modified. For
example, inn installs commands into /usr/lib/news/bin, but that
directory should _not_ go into the path, not even for root. Those
parts of inn that reference these binaries, do it via a direct
path (or else they make sure they add the directory to PATH).

Another example is MH, which puts its commands into /usr/bin/mh.
That directly also shouldn't be added automatically to PATH,
since users shouldn't get MH commands by mistake. If MH commands
are meant for all users, then they should be installed in

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: pgp3_LSVlUA8G.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: