Shoot me now

Nicholas Petreley nicholas at
Tue May 2 16:09:58 PDT 2000

Forget what I just said.  This is a good point.  

Wrapper scripts are the way to go, I guess, but then 
you're still talking about what shell will execute 
the wrapper.  Which means we define which shells must 
exist on the system, right?

* H. Peter Anvin (hpa at [000502 14:24]:
> Erik Troan wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 2 May 2000, Nicholas Petreley wrote:
> > 
> > > IMO an installation program for an app should be able to change the .profile or equivalent in a user's home dir if it needs to (at least with the permission of the user).  That means that it needs to find a .profile vs. a .login, or whatever.  Or perhaps this means the app should query to find out which shell the user has enabled by default, and find the correct file that way?  In which case we should specify the correct way to do that perhaps?
> > 
> > Ugh. We should just standardize /etc/profile.d or the like.
> > 
> Great.  Then you're breaking anyone who isn't using bash or ksh.  I bet
> 10:1 that this is going to be used for setting environment variables,
> which are *MUCH* better set in a wrapper script.
> Should we standardize /etc/csh.complete as well?  If anything there
> would be a stronger case made for that.
> I suggest that unless someone could produce *very* strong evidence that
> this is a desirable feature, I don't think we should touch this one,
> especially not for LSB 1.0.  We have enough to do, and we need to get it
> done.
> 	-hpa

Nicholas Petreley                   LinuxWorld - InfoWorld
nicholas at - - Eph 6:12

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list