Christopher Faylor wrote: > > >>>Well, my interest begins and ends with the file creation being moved > >>>somewhere sensible. Simply running setup should not create > >>>/etc/profile any more than installing sed. > >> > >>Yep. Agreed. > >> > >I'm not sure I agree. It doesn't matter what creates it, it needs > >created. Go back before DJ created the patch to setup and take a look > >at the mail list. It's a needed item, setup does it now. It's a > >living method. It needs a modification, so just modify it. I would; > >but, Robert, you've it already in your sandbox and it's such a simple > >change. > > What are you not agreeing to? No one is denying that the /etc/profile > files themselves need to be created. >
I don't know that setup shouldn't be the creator of /etc/profile vs some external package that installs it. > If you're referring to adding an alias for 'more', then we're not > talking about that. I'm talking of adding the suggestion of export PAGER=less to the current methods of creating /etc/profile. > It's not the correct solution anyway. Adding an > alias in /etc/profile doesn't help tcsh users and it breaks ash usage > without the addition of extra tests. Which, coincidentally, brings us > back to the issue of what should be in /etc/profile. > I don't disagree with this. It's just that I made a _simple_ suggestion and it broke out into a long winded conversation that ends up having little relevance to the suggestion. Earnie. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
