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

Re: Bug#364319: base-files: PS1 setting for *ksh (PROPOSAL: /etc/profile.d/)



On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 12:53:01PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> On Sunday 23 April 2006 20:26, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net> writes:
> 
> > > 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.

I suggest the post below that detail how they use it and why
this is not needed in Debian:

<http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2004/06/msg00136.html>

> > > 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.  
> 
> here's the current situation for Debian shells regarding a modularized on 
> login-script: 
> - fish, psh, zoidberg: each have their own modularized on-login script
> - tcsh and csh: share the on-login script, not currently modularized but see
>   bug #351652 which is marked pending
> - zsh: not currently modularized, but see bug #351663
> - bourne compatible shells ((bash, dash, ksh, pdksh, mksh ) are all
>   using /etc/profile which is currently non-modularized and owned by
>   base-files.
>   Modularization has been requested repeatedly, see bugs #345921, #345921,
>   #285105, #283089, #170639, #163743, #129892, #114642, and now the bug
>   we're discussing.
>   As far as I can tell (note the qualifier, merely my impression) the
>   base-files maintainer is regarding any addition to /etc/profile as bloat,
>   and is opposed to modularizing the script.
> 
> -> that's 3 out of 6 on-login files modularized, one that will be
>    modularized, one rejection of modularization, and 1 that's undecided
> -> none of the currently modularized on-login files have raised any problems
>    as far as I'm aware, even though each of them has been there for at least
>    a couple of months now.
> 
> > Policy does not make that assumption; that's 
> > one of the major benefits of the approach currently in Policy.
>   
> Policy (in section 9.9) says:
> 
>   A program must not depend on environment variables to get reasonable
>   defaults. 
> 
> (are there any other relevant sections, if so which?)
> 
> > 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, 

In that case, I would suggest to introduce a /etc/bashrc.d and /etc/kshrc.d 
rather than a /etc/profile.d. 

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 



Reply to: