On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: > On Wednesday 04 January 2006 13:09, you wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: > > > Package: base-files > > > Version: 3.1.9 > > > Severity: wishlist > > > Tags: patch > > > > > > Adding the snippet below to /etc/profile modularizes /etc/profile so > > > packages can drop snippets they want to add into an /etc/profile.d dir > > > and have them picket up. > > > > No, not again. > please use the wontfix tag instead of closing, this seems to be a textbook > case of what the tag is for (and would avoid the whole 'again' > frustration').
Sorry, but I have never been a big fan of the wontfix tag. Either a bug is a bug and should be fixed, or it is not and should be closed. There is no excuse for not reading the documentation. > > Please read /usr/share/doc/base-files/FAQ. > had missed this, reading now ... > > as I'll explain below I don't feel it addresses the reason I want this: > > > Q. Why does Debian not have a "profile.d" directory, like other > > distributions? > > > > A. Because no Debian package needs it. Debian policy says: "A program > > must not depend on environment variables to get reasonable defaults". > > This policy has been very successful so far. If the default install > > had a profile.d, people might think it's ok to use it for a Debian > > package, when in fact policy does not support such thing. > > There's other reason's then setting environment variables _needed_ by a > program to run to want a profile.d directory. > > For example adding some piece of management infrastructure for the admin, > which is wat desktop-profiles does: essentially I need to run the profile > activation script when logging in with 'ssh -X' (as the Xsession.d scripts > then don't get run that way). > That script parses configuration files, and based on the settings in them > sets up the admin-controlled configuration sets to be used (which might > differ according to usergroup, or any other testable condition) by the > graphical apps of the various desktops. > Programs will work just fine when those sets aren't loaded, they just won't > be using the settings the administrator wants them to use (which might > necessitate the user duplicating eacht setting the admin made, or might > allow the user to avoid a mandatory setting). > > More generally there's the point of CDD's (desktop-profiles came out of that > corner), the whole idea of which is to have a standard Debian, but > configured to suit a specific target group/goal/situation. > The only way to do this _inside_ of Debian is for packages to allow other > packages to add bits of configuration (essentially the configuration > package becomes the admin doing the initial setup). > The other option is to fork each package needing configuration with all the > extra work and effort that ncessitates. > > As the above (hopefully) makes clear there's currently at least 1 Debian > package which _does_ need it, and with the growing number of CDD's there's > bound to be more sooner or later. You are welcome to propose a policy change mandating the profile.d thing. Until then, I consider the profile.d thing as something harmful, as it would open a can of worms. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
