Forget what I just said. This is a good point. Wrapper scripts are the way to go, I guess, but then you're still talking about what shell will execute the wrapper. Which means we define which shells must exist on the system, right? -Nick
* H. Peter Anvin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000502 14:24]: > Erik Troan wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2 May 2000, Nicholas Petreley wrote: > > > > > IMO an installation program for an app should be able to change the > > > .profile or equivalent in a user's home dir if it needs to (at least with > > > the permission of the user). That means that it needs to find a .profile > > > vs. a .login, or whatever. Or perhaps this means the app should query to > > > find out which shell the user has enabled by default, and find the > > > correct file that way? In which case we should specify the correct way > > > to do that perhaps? > > > > Ugh. We should just standardize /etc/profile.d or the like. > > > > Great. Then you're breaking anyone who isn't using bash or ksh. I bet > 10:1 that this is going to be used for setting environment variables, > which are *MUCH* better set in a wrapper script. > > Should we standardize /etc/csh.complete as well? If anything there > would be a stronger case made for that. > > I suggest that unless someone could produce *very* strong evidence that > this is a desirable feature, I don't think we should touch this one, > especially not for LSB 1.0. We have enough to do, and we need to get it > done. > > -hpa > -- ********************************************************** Nicholas Petreley LinuxWorld - InfoWorld [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.petreley.com - Eph 6:12 ********************************************************** .
