Re: Another possible slink goal (multipackages users profile)
Hi,
Maybe I should submit some code. I want all packages that
submit fles to the /etc/env to have the change be off by default.
______________________________________________________________________
#!/bin/sh
MYNAME=foobar
ALLOWED=$(egrep "^$MYNAME *= *YES" /etc/env.allow)
if test "X$ALLOWED" = "X"; then
exit 0;
fi
FOOBAZ=VALUE
export FOOBAZ
... whatever
______________________________________________________________________
See? Now I can turn things on package by package.
Have the update env script add to /etc/env.allow
update-env --comment "# The variable FOOBAR enhances the gizmo baz" \
--test-var "foobar=NO" [other options"
Which would append
# The variable FOOBAR enhances the gizmo baz
foobar=NO
To /etc/env.allow. See? control with no loss of flexibility.
>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <wakkerma@wiggy.ml.org> writes:
Wichert> [1 <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>]
Wichert> Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I am not sure I like this. I want, as a sys admin, to be able
>> control what gets on to my system. I want to check what packages are
>> adding, and I want to have a say in what gets allowed.
Wichert> Do you also want to say what packages may be installed in the menu?
Wichert> For normal users dwww-config and lilo-config in there is also quite
Wichert> silly..
Having extra entries in in menu does not change the behaviour
of my command shell. Come to think of it, though. it would be nice
if there was more control over menu.
>> As a users, I may want to over ride setting for the system as
>> well.
Wichert> There is nothing in the current proposal which claim to
Wichert> prevent that. In fact it cannot be prevented (unless you
Wichert> hack the shell of course)
Actually, well, I do not want to have to go over the
/etc/environment with a fine tooth comb every time I upgrade the
system ti see what else I have to nullify.
>> This is quite similar to the arbitary programs in ip-up/down
>> dir -- unless the sysadming/user goves permission, this should not be
>> done. Such deviation from UNIX norm should always be *optional*, and
>> preferably on a package by package basis.
Wichert> chmod -x `which update-profiles`.
This is an all or nothing proposition. I hate that. I want to
be able to choose on a package by package basis.
--
The more time you spend in reporting on what you are doing, the less
time you have to do it in. Stability is achieved when you spend all
your time doing nothing but reporting on the nothing you are doing.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: