On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: > I've reasoned that: > 1) policy allows a profile.d
Policy allows a lot of things, but that does not mean that every thing which policy allows should be implemented. Point 1 invalid. > 2) policy prohibits misuse of it It *will* be abused, and the abuse will be worse than the supposed benefits. The probability of that happening is 1. Point 2 invalid. > 3) there's currently at least 5 packages that would use it Those packages should probably not exist. Point 3 invalid. That number is so low that I'm wondering why on earth I am still replying to you. Debian has more than 15000 packages, and we have survived very well without the profile.d thing. Just because some packages "would" use it does not mean it is a good idea. > 4) given the above a profile.d should be added I'm sorry, but I do not follow your line of reasoning. If it is so much important for you, modify policy so that it regulates the use of profile.d. Until then, it will not be added to base-files. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
