On Sat, September 17, 2005 2:35 pm, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Sep 17 07:19, Eric Blake wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> According to Max Bowsher on 9/16/2005 4:27 PM: >> > The current /etc/profile does not permit the use of symlinks in >> > /etc/profile.d/ - it ignores them. >> > >> > Unfortunately, even if this was fixed in the package, existing >> installs >> > wouldn't get fixed, because /etc/profile is handled via /etc/defaults >> :-( >> > >> > /me gives up on finding a way for /sbin/alternatives to influence >> $MANPATH. >> >> Here's my idea - add a /etc/profile/symlinkhandler.sh that detects >> whether >> /etc/profile has been patched yet, and if not, source all the symlinks >> in >> /etc/profile. Now which package should provide that (alternatives vs. >> base-files vs. something else), I'm not sure. But you are also right >> that >> base-files should be patched to source links to regular files as well as >> regular files. One idea is to change that the appropriate line in >> /etc/default/etc/profile from 'if [ -f "${f}" ]' to 'if [ ! -d "$f/" ]'. > > I'm wondering if base-files can't check if /etc/profile has been changed, > for instance, using md5sum. Then it could overwrite the file if it's > still > the original version, or, if it has been changed, move it away to, for > instance, /etc/profile.SAV or something.
The preremove part of base-files could be modified to rename any of the files that have been modified (if they haven't then they are deleted ready for the post-install routine to install new versions) - although I don't know if it's desirable behaviour. I'm not sure if I'd be terribly happy to have cygwin just rename my customisations out of the way, would be *highly* confusing the first (at least!) time it happened... J.