On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 02:20:19PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> The profile.d thing has been suggested several times (see the archived
> bugs for the base-files package) and I have always rejected it because
> it is against the spirit of policy when it says:
>
(..)
>
> If we followed this, no program in Debian should ever need a profile.d
> mechanism.
>
You are wrong here. Sample:
- I want to provide a package with a lot of useful bash functions/aliases w/o
changing any program
- I want my users to have a given enviroment for *all* programs.
> My opinion is that this policy (i.e. that packages should fall back to
> reasonable defaults) is *good* and should not be changed.
Yes. Reasonable defaults is a good thing.
Adding flexibility is another.
>
> Packages "needing" a profile.d are buggy and should be changed.
Not all Packages might not need profile.d, administrators might
and some "special" package which customize the environment do to.
¿How can Debian provide any kind of environment customization without
this?
Take a look at lang-env and user-XX and see the "hacks" that developers
need to do because of this mechanism not currently being implemented.
>
> I'm reassigning this bug to the debian-policy package, where it really
> belongs.
Ok. But I have not yet been convinced that this is a 'wishlist' bug.
You are only viewing the
'package A needs to set the enviroment for himself and will put stuff in
/etc/profile.d'
instead of
'package B needs to set the environment for other packages (since we are not
going to provide N packages with N being the number of languages we support for
example)'
'package C wants to give user's some useful aliases/customization in their
shells'
'administrator X wants to add stuff for all his users'
Please read the policy diff I adjointed, it does not change the "spirit
of the word" and adds much-needed flexibility!
Javi
