Re: /etc/profile.d
Paul Seelig <pseelig@mail.uni-mainz.de> wrote:
>> But if you really need such a mechanism, why don't you create a
>> real generic one?
> I don't use any other shell on Linux than Bash and have no idea
> about other shells. The only other shells i (unwillingly) touched so
> far are the HP-UX-10.20 /bin/{sh,ksh}. The mechanism i wrote works
> just fine for me using Bash only.
My "you" didn't meant you personally but all these people who are
asking for /etc/profile.d from time to time...
> Massimo's approach is more general though because it includes csh
> support too.
But with the drawback, that it doesn't work for example with lsh
(which uses an /etc/autoexec which a DOS like syntax), and the user of
Massimo's approach has to know the syntax (and restrictions) of both
shell types to create two versions of every script (hoping that he
never forgets to keep these two in sync).
>> If I would need something like this, I would go the following way:
> Well, how about you? ;-)
This should (if at all) be done by someone who really wants such a
mechanism. I personally don't need it (the only real usage, where I
see no other solution is check-sendfile), so I wouldn't support with
all my heart (don't forget that for a good solution you have to think
about quoting, you should check for already set variables,... pam_env
may give you some hints what should be checked).
Tschoeeee
Roland
--
* roland@spinnaker.de * http://www.spinnaker.de/ *
Reply to: