You CCed me on list mail. Don't do that. Please see "Code of Conduct" under <http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/>. On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 01:34:09AM +0200, Manfred Wassmann wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > If the display manager supports PAM, as I think all display managers > > currently in woody do, then pam_env.so will have been run well before > > the terminal emulators are started. Therefore -ls is overkill. > > Simple answer: No > > Either pam_env.so isn't run or it doesn't work. $ dlocate -S pam_env.so libpam-modules: /lib/security/pam_env.so Sounds like a bug. > > Furthermore, I personally am resistant to specifying -ls for all Debian > > window managers because: > > > > * it would be disruptive to the expectations of users who have gotten > > used to it not being set > > Not a good reason. Now it's disruptive to the expectations of users who > don't want to get used to buggy behaviour. For your subjective (and self-serving, apparently) definition of "buggy". Some of us, believe it or not, understand the distinction between "login shells" and ordinary interactive shells. > > * I'm not sure all x-terminal-emulator packages support "-ls". > > It doesn't have to be the -ls switch. I'd be happy with any decent > solution ensuring that terminal emlators invoke shells in a way that > startup files for interactive shells are read, if they are used to run > interactive shells. Feel free to propose one. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | If encryption is outlawed, only branden@debian.org | outlaws will @goH7Ok=<q4fDj]Kz?. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpYhtXPl410Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature