Hi. There are several issues here to consider.
* The profile.d thing alone. I have always considered it a bad idea, but if the LSB says we should have it by default, well, it seems I'll have to modify /etc/profile accordingly after all. * 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". * 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. Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
