Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 15 July 2005 09:25 pm, Michael Marineau wrote: >
>> >>Does the risk of abuse outweigh the potential usefulness that much? My >>vote would be to do more of this sort of thing. Reducing the >>oppertunity for users to shoot themselves in the foot would be good. > > > err i dont see what this topic has to do with baselayout's problems > with /etc/profile.d functionality > > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is that > *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random Gentoo > developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with package > app-crap/FooBar > -mike I just ment that by providing profile.d (and similar things) would let users customize their profile without having to edit a gentoo installed file, making upgrades a bit easier. To prevent abuse perhaps portage could enforce a blacklist of locations that are reserved for users. (/root and /usr/local could also be blacklisted). But on the other hand profile.d isn't that big of an issue as users won't blow away their /etc/profile as long as they use etc-update properly. -- Michael Marineau [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Linux Developer Oregon State University
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
