Re: Bug#364319: base-files: PS1 setting for *ksh (PROPOSAL: /etc/profile.d/)
Jari Aalto <email@example.com> writes:
> I feel that the current /etc/profile or the future (if that plan is
> commenced) /etc/profile does not do any service whatsoever since it
> does not improve the situation.
> The policy's purpose should not to hinder development but guide it to
> sensible direction that serves the Debian community, the end users.
> What we need and what should have been done a long time ago, is to
> modularize profile to /etc/profile.d/ where each program is resposible
> for shipping reasonable defaults. Redhad has done this long time and
> Cygwin does that too and it works very well.
> This way all the other issues concerning configuration would be nicely
> modularized. There would certainly be several packages that would
> benefit from /etc/profile.d/
Please do not make the assumption that every shell reads /etc/profile or
would read /etc/profile.d. Policy does not make that assumption; that's
one of the major benefits of the approach currently in Policy.
If there are problems internal only to the ksh/bash family of shells that
would be solved by /etc/profile.d, it may still be a good idea to create
/etc/profile.d for their internal use, but if other packages start putting
things into /etc/profile.d assuming that they are then seen by all shells,
it will break things quite badly and cause exactly the sort of problems
that Policy was designed to protect against.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>