[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: profile.d [was Re: UMASK 002 or 022?]



On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 05:05:00PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Ethan Benson <erbenson@alaska.net> writes:
> 
> > everything in /etc/profile except PATH and MANPATH is a user
> > PREFERENCE, it does not belong in /etc it belongs in $HOME, where they
> > can change it.
> 
> No it's not. Quite a few applications rely on envvars set to the right
> value, man being only one of them. How is MANPATH different from
> CVSROOT? What's the problem with setting the latter in /etc/profile?

i am mainly talking about command aliases and such, and reread what i
wrote, i said MANPATH *does* belong in /etc/profile.  CVSROOT, sure.
alias ll='ls -l' no.

> Users can still overwrite envvars.

and in the case of redhat's profile.d nonsense they have to, for
things like PATH that are horridly screwed up due to it.  thus the
user loses the advantage of automatically gaining new PATH entries
added by the sysadmin.  

> > as far as dealing with changing a variable like say PATH in one file
> > why not juse use pam_env or /etc/environment?
> 
> That's perfectly fine for admins to edit. But packages can't.

from my experience packages editing the environment -- by whatver
means-- creates a mess.  IMO this needs to be left to the admin. 


-- 
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/

Attachment: pgpdH8vZHWLdz.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: