Adam,
Thanks for the explanation. I'm glad I avoided the hassle of
raising a bug report on this occasion.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d2ae50
On Mon, January 10, 2011 09:57, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> According to #370348, since 5.3 base-files has supported /etc/profile
> sourcing /etc/profile.d. I am using version 6.0.
> However /etc/profiles seems to be doing no such thing.
When was the system in question installed?
The chan
According to #370348, since 5.3 base-files has supported /etc/profile
sourcing /etc/profile.d. I am using version 6.0.
However /etc/profiles seems to be doing no such thing.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl
On 12/20/2010 02:11 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Please don’t use profile.d to do that. Nothing guarantees you that this
> variable will be available everywhere.
>
> This is precisely the reason why I’d rather we didn’t have such a
> feature, since it inevitably gets misused in such a way - as it
Le lundi 20 décembre 2010 à 01:31 +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf a écrit :
> I was looking at /etc/profile.d/ and was not sure how it was to function.
>
> As per LSB 4.0, every script present in /etc/profile.d/ is executed.
> I am thinking of a way to have a system wide shell variable
Hello,
I was looking at /etc/profile.d/ and was not sure how it was to function.
As per LSB 4.0, every script present in /etc/profile.d/ is executed.
I am thinking of a way to have a system wide shell variable that can be
used and updated by
further newer shell processes.
Like, if I do an
cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> /etc/profile is only used by bourne-compatible shells (of which tcsh
> isn't one). Most things can be writte in a way that's valid for all
> bourne-compatible shells, and any bits that can't can easily be wrapped
> in an appropriate if-state
at should have been done a long time ago, is to
> > > > modularize profile to /etc/profile.d/ where each program is
> > > > resposible for shipping reasonable defaults. Redhad has done this
> > > > long time and Cygwin does that too and it works very well.
>
&
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 12:53:01PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> On Sunday 23 April 2006 20:26, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > What we need and what should have been done a long time ago, is to
> > > modular
On Sunday 23 April 2006 20:26, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What we need and what should have been done a long time ago, is to
> > modularize profile to /etc/profile.d/ where each program is resposible
> > for shipping reasonable def
guide it to
> sensible direction that serves the Debian community, the end users.
> What we need and what should have been done a long time ago, is to
> modularize profile to /etc/profile.d/ where each program is resposible
> for shipping reasonable defaults. Redhad has done this long
ervice whatsoever since it
does not improve the situation.
The policy's purpose should not to hinder development but guide it to
sensible direction that serves the Debian community, the end users.
What we need and what should have been done a long time ago, is to
modularize profile to /etc/profile.
12 matches
Mail list logo
