[Santiago Vila] > * Please tell me your ideas about how we will avoid packages > breaking policy when it says "applications should not need > environment variables to work sensibly". I fear that package > maintainers will see the profile.d thing and start using it blindly > "just because it's supported".
Well, given that Debian users will have all kind of strange environment variables set, I expect any package expecting their setting in profile.d to survive until their programs are executed will get an RC bug fairly quickly. In short, I do not believe it will happen in any large degree, and if someone happen to try this approach, RC bugs will put them straight. :) > * In your particular case, using profile.d to override umask does > not seem very elegant to me. I would be willing to *not* set umask > at all in /etc/profile.d, I think that would allow you to set the > umask using PAM. Please tell me what do you think about > this. Recently, several things have been removed from base-files in > favor of /etc/login.defs. The umask would be just a step in the > same direction. I believe pam is a better place to control the default umask, and welcome such change. But it would only help us adjusting the umask without breaking policy if we can adjust the umask in the pam setup without having to edit another packages configuration files. But that would be the topic for another bug, I believe. :) Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
