Bug#122817: base-files: Please provide profile.d hook in /etc/profile
Hello Debian policy, I do not like /etc/profile.d idea because I am a zsh user and every implementation I saw so far were completly broken if your shell was not bash. -- Either /etc/profile.d applied only to bash, but why discriminating users of other shell (zsh,tcsh,etc...) ? -- Either /etc/profile.d was applyed to zsh as well but just break randomly, because of syntax difference. Using /etc/profile.d to set an environment variable is not policy-compliant since Debian policy forbid packages relying on environment variable: 10.9. Environment variables --- A program must not depend on environment variables to get reasonable defaults. (That's because these environment variables would have to be set in a system-wide configuration file like `/etc/profile', which is not supported by all shells.) Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#122817: base-files: Please provide profile.d hook in /etc/profile
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 09:37:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 03:04:39PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: You are wrong here. Sample: - I want to provide a package with a lot of useful bash functions/aliases w/o changing any program Write scripts and put them in /usr/local/bin. ¿? Packages cannot place scripts in /usr/local/bin. It's against policy. - I want my users to have a given enviroment for *all* programs. /etc/environment Santiago is right about this. Yes, it frightens me to hear myself saying that. But why is flexibility such a frightening thing? And yes, it frightens me too :) Javi
Re: Bug#122817: base-files: Please provide profile.d hook in /etc/profile
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:11:06AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 09:37:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 03:04:39PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: You are wrong here. Sample: - I want to provide a package with a lot of useful bash functions/aliases w/o changing any program Write scripts and put them in /usr/local/bin. ¿? Packages cannot place scripts in /usr/local/bin. It's against policy. A package YOU make, used only on your own system, doesn't have to follow Debian Policy. -- G. Branden Robinson|If a man ate a pound of pasta and a Debian GNU/Linux |pound of antipasto, would they [EMAIL PROTECTED] |cancel out, leaving him still http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |hungry? -- Scott Adams pgplWY2sYzdWC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#122817: base-files: Please provide profile.d hook in /etc/profile
reassign 122817 debian-policy severity 122817 wishlist thanks On 7 Dec 2001, Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pena wrote: Package: base-files Version: 3.0 Severity: important Tag: patch First of all, I'm setting this bug as important due to the fact that, even if it works as is some packages (bastille and user-es for example) have to do some very nasty stuff to work properly. The issue here is: how do packages include/change information in the user's environment without changing /etc/profile? Currently there is no way. 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: 10.9 Environment variables A program must not depend on environment variables to get reasonable defaults. (That's because these environment variables would have to be set in a system-wide configuration file like /etc/profile, which is not supported by all shells.) If a program usually depends on environment variables for its configuration, the program should be changed to fall back to a reasonable default configuration if these environment variables are not present. If we followed this, no program in Debian should ever need a profile.d mechanism. My opinion is that this policy (i.e. that packages should fall back to reasonable defaults) is *good* and should not be changed. Packages needing a profile.d are buggy and should be changed. I'm reassigning this bug to the debian-policy package, where it really belongs.
Processed: Re: Bug#122817: base-files: Please provide profile.d hook in /etc/profile
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: reassign 122817 debian-policy Bug#122817: base-files: Please provide profile.d hook in /etc/profile Bug reassigned from package `base-files' to `debian-policy'. severity 122817 wishlist Bug#122817: base-files: Please provide profile.d hook in /etc/profile Severity set to `wishlist'. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Re: Bug#122817: base-files: Please provide profile.d hook in /etc/profile
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
Re: Bug#122817: base-files: Please provide profile.d hook in /etc/profile
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 03:04:39PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: You are wrong here. Sample: - I want to provide a package with a lot of useful bash functions/aliases w/o changing any program Write scripts and put them in /usr/local/bin. - I want my users to have a given enviroment for *all* programs. /etc/environment Santiago is right about this. Yes, it frightens me to hear myself saying that. -- G. Branden Robinson| Exercise your freedom of religion. Debian GNU/Linux | Set fire to a church of your [EMAIL PROTECTED] | choice. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpGurJRmdLIB.pgp Description: PGP signature
