Re: /etc/profile.d ?

[psu25682@odin.cc.pdx.edu (Karl M. Hegbloom)]

>>>>> "Lars" == Lars Wirzenius <liw@iki.fi> writes:

    Lars> [1 <text/plain>] psu25682@odin.cc.pdx.edu (Karl
    Lars> M. Hegbloom):
    >> What if we had an /etc/profile.d (not invented here) where
    >> packages (like postgresql) could drop a startup file for
    >> /etc/profile to source in a for f in /etc/profile.d/* loop?
    >>
    >> Pros and cons?

    Lars> - It's shell specific. Similar stuff would be needed for
    Lars>   other shells.

 RH has an /etc/profile.d, and they've got a snippet for csh and
 another for sh for every package that installs something there.  The
 profile for each shell then loops through and sources the appropriate 
 snippets, which have suffixes to differentiate them.

    Lars> - If the package needs it, it's buggy and should be
    Lars>   fixed. (The correct way in that case is to make it a
    Lars>   script wrapper aound the actual program, not assume things
    Lars>   are done in /etc/profile.)

 Yes, that seems like a better way to do things.

    Lars> - If the package doesn't need it, it's unnecessary clutter
    Lars>   that will fill up my root partition and slow up my logins
    Lars>   needlessly. As sysadmin, I don't want to have to clean up
    Lars>   stuff like that after every upgrade.

 We'd have to write two snippets for every package needing this, and
 they'd have to be made idempotent and able to function when a package 
 is removed leaving config files behind.

    Lars> - If it is meant just as an example, put it in
    Lars>   /usr/doc/*/examples.

 Alright.

    Lars> In summary, I still (as on some earlier occasions when this
    Lars> has been suggested) that the idea is not worth it.

 Ok.  I trust your wisdom.  (Gee, why didn't I think of that, it's so
 obvious.)

 Thanks, Lars.