Re: Bug#364319: base-files: PS1 setting for *ksh (PROPOSAL: /etc/profile.d/)
Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net> 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 (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: