[gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Herbert Fischer]

Hi,

I'm new to this list and I really don't know if this is the right
place to post this message. I already posted something about this on
the gentoo forums and I don't know too if the correct persons are
seeing that, so I decided to post here. Sorry for the double posting,
so I'll be straight on the fact.

In about one and a half year working with Gentoo I had a lots os
yeepies and some boring problems.

I love the /etc/env.d, env-update, /etc/profile.env thing but I think
that is something missing.

In the past I worked many years with Slackware. Now I replaced
Slackware with Gentoo and everywere I use Gentoo, even on some old
creepy IBM-PPC B50 hardware.

In Slackware I had /etc/profile.d/ as a place to customize all my
shell environment, including aliases, prompt, etc, without touching
original Slackware's files.

In Gentoo we need to "hack" files that sometimes are changed in some
"emerge world" updates, like /etc/profile, /etc/skel/.bashrc, and that
is a little mess to me, as when etc-update's list is too long I place
a "-5" (auto update) and voilá... all my customizations are gone.

I suggest Gentoo adopting a /etc/profile.d/ dir like Slackware, or
even better, have some way, some place, to customize aliases, prompts,
etc, without being replaced on "etc-update"s... some place untouchable
for Gentoo, by Gentoo and that's automatically parsed on /etc/profile
(or somewhere else) by default.

Slackware parses /etc/profile.d/ by having those lines bellow on /etc/profile:

# Append any additional sh scripts found in /etc/profile.d/:
for file in /etc/profile.d/*.sh ; do
  if [ -x $file ]; then
    . $file
  fi
done

... and those lines in /etc/csh.login (for csh users):

# Append any additional csh scripts found in /etc/profile.d/:
[ -d /etc/profile.d ]
if ($status == 0) then
        set nonomatch
        foreach file ( /etc/profile.d/*.csh )
                [ -x $file ]
                if ($status == 0) then
                        source $file
                endif
        end
        unset file nonomatch
endif

That way the root user only need to create new files on
/etc/profile.d/ to customize their shells. *.sh for bash/ash/sh and
*.csh for csh/tcsh shells.

Best regards,

Herbert G. Fischer

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 15 July 2005 05:59 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> In Slackware I had /etc/profile.d/ as a place to customize all my
> shell environment, including aliases, prompt, etc, without touching
> original Slackware's files.

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4854
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Herbert Fischer]

thanks! I did not look at bugs.gentoo.org because I did not thought
that things like this could be placed there, as I consider a
suggestion, not a bug.

On 7/15/05, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Friday 15 July 2005 05:59 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> > In Slackware I had /etc/profile.d/ as a place to customize all my
> > shell environment, including aliases, prompt, etc, without touching
> > original Slackware's files.
> 
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4854
> -mike
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 15 July 2005 06:36 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> thanks! I did not look at bugs.gentoo.org because I did not thought
> that things like this could be placed there, as I consider a
> suggestion, not a bug.

we use bugzilla for all bugs / enhancements pretty much
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Herbert Fischer]

Thanks... I saw that "bug" and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and
nothing was done. Did you know why?

On 7/15/05, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Friday 15 July 2005 06:36 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> > thanks! I did not look at bugs.gentoo.org because I did not thought
> > that things like this could be placed there, as I consider a
> > suggestion, not a bug.
> 
> we use bugzilla for all bugs / enhancements pretty much
> -mike
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 15 July 2005 06:56 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> Thanks... I saw that "bug" and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and
> nothing was done. Did you know why?

hmm, us baselayout guys have discussed it before, but i guess we've never 
posted to the bug

the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer 
abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a file 
there, it should only ever contain files created by the user
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Herbert Fischer]

can you control this ??

or... maybe could be a place most likely env.d that we could place
aliases, shell functions and customize prompt with a "closed
objective" approach

If I develop something safe there is some possibility to this being
put it on the main gentoo baselayout project ? If so, I'll try
something.

On 7/15/05, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Friday 15 July 2005 06:56 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> > Thanks... I saw that "bug" and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and
> > nothing was done. Did you know why?
> 
> hmm, us baselayout guys have discussed it before, but i guess we've never
> posted to the bug
> 
> the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer
> abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a file
> there, it should only ever contain files created by the user
> -mike
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Michael Marineau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 979 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 15 July 2005 06:56 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> 
>>Thanks... I saw that "bug" and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and
>>nothing was done. Did you know why?
> 
> 
> hmm, us baselayout guys have discussed it before, but i guess we've never 
> posted to the bug
> 
> the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer 
> abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a file 
> there, it should only ever contain files created by the user
> -mike

Does the risk of abuse outweigh the potential usefulness that much?  My
vote would be to do more of this sort of thing.  Reducing the
oppertunity for users to shoot themselves in the foot would be good.

speeking of shooting feet, it's be a pretty interesting statistic to see
how many times people have borked their system by accidently replacing
their fstab :-P

-- 
Michael Marineau
marineam@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux Developer
Oregon State University

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 15 July 2005 09:25 pm, Michael Marineau wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 15 July 2005 06:56 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> >>Thanks... I saw that "bug" and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and
> >>nothing was done. Did you know why?
> >
> > hmm, us baselayout guys have discussed it before, but i guess we've never
> > posted to the bug
> >
> > the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer
> > abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a
> > file there, it should only ever contain files created by the user
>
> Does the risk of abuse outweigh the potential usefulness that much?  My
> vote would be to do more of this sort of thing.  Reducing the
> oppertunity for users to shoot themselves in the foot would be good.

err i dont see what this topic has to do with baselayout's problems 
with /etc/profile.d functionality

we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is that 
*only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random Gentoo 
developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with package 
app-crap/FooBar
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Michael Marineau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1230 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 15 July 2005 09:25 pm, Michael Marineau wrote:
> 

>>
>>Does the risk of abuse outweigh the potential usefulness that much?  My
>>vote would be to do more of this sort of thing.  Reducing the
>>oppertunity for users to shoot themselves in the foot would be good.
> 
> 
> err i dont see what this topic has to do with baselayout's problems 
> with /etc/profile.d functionality
> 
> we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is that 
> *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random Gentoo 
> developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with package 
> app-crap/FooBar
> -mike

I just ment that by providing profile.d (and similar things) would let
users customize
their profile without having to edit a gentoo installed file, making
upgrades a bit
easier.  To prevent abuse perhaps portage could enforce a blacklist of
locations that
are reserved for users. (/root and /usr/local could also be
blacklisted).  But on the other
hand profile.d isn't that big of an issue as  users won't blow away
their /etc/profile as long
as they use etc-update properly.

-- 
Michael Marineau
marineam@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux Developer
Oregon State University

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 15 July 2005 09:56 pm, Michael Marineau wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 15 July 2005 09:25 pm, Michael Marineau wrote:
> >>Does the risk of abuse outweigh the potential usefulness that much?  My
> >>vote would be to do more of this sort of thing.  Reducing the
> >>oppertunity for users to shoot themselves in the foot would be good.
> >
> > err i dont see what this topic has to do with baselayout's problems
> > with /etc/profile.d functionality
> >
> > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> > that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
> > Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
> > package app-crap/FooBar
>
> I just ment that by providing profile.d (and similar things) would let
> users customize
> their profile without having to edit a gentoo installed file, making
> upgrades a bit
> easier.

ah, so *i* misunderstood *your* reply ;)
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 533 bytes --]

On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 18:56 -0700, Michael Marineau wrote:
> I just ment that by providing profile.d (and similar things) would let
> users customize
> their profile without having to edit a gentoo installed file, making
> upgrades a bit
> easier.  To prevent abuse perhaps portage could enforce a blacklist of
> locations that
> are reserved for users. (/root and /usr/local could also be
> blacklisted).

That's an interesting idea. At the profile level we could specify
INSTALL_MASK for locations like this.

Donnie

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Aaron Walker]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mike Frysinger wrote:

> the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer 
> abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a file 
> there, it should only ever contain files created by the user
> -mike

Hmm... what about bash-completion?  bash-completion has installed
/etc/profile.d/bash-completion long before I took over maintaining it.
- --
Beauty is one of the rare things which does not lead to doubt of God.
		-- Jean Anouilh

Aaron Walker <ka0ttic@gentoo.org>
[ BSD | cron | forensics | shell-tools | commonbox | netmon | vim | web-apps ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFC2HwhC3poscuANHARAul7AKDGBeScuVw1rtXT24dS4vOyXk8HHQCgmE9h
tFYyw27aA3yj11A8/kL+tAg=
=Lxc2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Petteri Räty]

Herbert Fischer wrote:
> 
> In Gentoo we need to "hack" files that sometimes are changed in some 
> "emerge world" updates, like /etc/profile, /etc/skel/.bashrc, and
> that is a little mess to me, as when etc-update's list is too long I
> place a "-5" (auto update) and voilá... all my customizations are
> gone.
> 

Try using dispatch-conf. It is much harder to shoot yourself in the foot
with that. I also agree that /etc/profile.d/ is a good idea even when 
using dispatch-conf.

Regards,
Petteri Räty (Betelgeuse)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 752 bytes --]

On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 19:02 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 15 July 2005 06:56 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> > Thanks... I saw that "bug" and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and
> > nothing was done. Did you know why?
> 
> hmm, us baselayout guys have discussed it before, but i guess we've never 
> posted to the bug
> 
> the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer 
> abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a file 
> there, it should only ever contain files created by the user

I the the resolution was pretty much that it is not that much of a
schlep to maintain those lines of code in /etc/profile if the user/admin
really wants it.


-- 
Martin Schlemmer


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Herbert Fischer]

Does Window$ and MacO$ users, with all "facilities" and "system
security controls" they have in their OSes are protected from shooting
themselves in the foot? I don't think so.

In this case particularly I don't think the risk is too big, since
global customizations must be done only by root.

I think that on the cited commercial OSes global customizations, that
can break the entire system, can be easily done by any user.

On 7/15/05, Michael Marineau <marineam@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 15 July 2005 06:56 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> >
> >>Thanks... I saw that "bug" and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and
> >>nothing was done. Did you know why?
> >
> >
> > hmm, us baselayout guys have discussed it before, but i guess we've never
> > posted to the bug
> >
> > the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer
> > abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a file
> > there, it should only ever contain files created by the user
> > -mike
> 
> Does the risk of abuse outweigh the potential usefulness that much?  My
> vote would be to do more of this sort of thing.  Reducing the
> oppertunity for users to shoot themselves in the foot would be good.
> 
> speeking of shooting feet, it's be a pretty interesting statistic to see
> how many times people have borked their system by accidently replacing
> their fstab :-P
> 
> --
> Michael Marineau
> marineam@gentoo.org
> Gentoo Linux Developer
> Oregon State University
> 
> 
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 794 bytes --]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
> Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
> package app-crap/FooBar

Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?

for x in $( < /etc/profile.d/.default); do
	source "/etc/profile.d/${x}"
done

That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
users added it to the .default file.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Herbert Fischer]

So... why /etc/.skel/ needs to be touched by Gentoo emerges? Isn't
this directory subject to developers installing foo-bar.sh files?

So, isn't this case the same with /etc/profile.d ??

On 7/16/05, Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> > that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
> > Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
> > package app-crap/FooBar
> 
> Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
> 
> for x in $( < /etc/profile.d/.default); do
>         source "/etc/profile.d/${x}"
> done
> 
> That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
> users added it to the .default file.
> 
> Marius
> 
> --
> Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
> 
> In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
> Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
> 
> 
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Herbert Fischer]

I meant... Isn't this directory subject to developers installing
custom .bashrc or .bash_profile, or whatever automatically executed on
login?

On 7/16/05, Herbert Fischer <herbert.fischer@gmail.com> wrote:
> So... why /etc/.skel/ needs to be touched by Gentoo emerges? Isn't
> this directory subject to developers installing foo-bar.sh files?
> 
> So, isn't this case the same with /etc/profile.d ??
> 
> On 7/16/05, Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> > Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> > > that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
> > > Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
> > > package app-crap/FooBar
> >
> > Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
> >
> > for x in $( < /etc/profile.d/.default); do
> >         source "/etc/profile.d/${x}"
> > done
> >
> > That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
> > users added it to the .default file.
> >
> > Marius
> >
> > --
> > Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
> >
> > In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
> > Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
> >
> >
> >
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Herbert Fischer]

Could be /etc/env.d and env-update extended to support more things
like aliases and shell functions?

On 7/16/05, Herbert Fischer <herbert.fischer@gmail.com> wrote:
> I meant... Isn't this directory subject to developers installing
> custom .bashrc or .bash_profile, or whatever automatically executed on
> login?
> 
> On 7/16/05, Herbert Fischer <herbert.fischer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So... why /etc/.skel/ needs to be touched by Gentoo emerges? Isn't
> > this directory subject to developers installing foo-bar.sh files?
> >
> > So, isn't this case the same with /etc/profile.d ??
> >
> > On 7/16/05, Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> > > Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> > > > that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
> > > > Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
> > > > package app-crap/FooBar
> > >
> > > Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
> > >
> > > for x in $( < /etc/profile.d/.default); do
> > >         source "/etc/profile.d/${x}"
> > > done
> > >
> > > That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
> > > users added it to the .default file.
> > >
> > > Marius
> > >
> > > --
> > > Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
> > >
> > > In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
> > > Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1226 bytes --]

On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 19:03 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> > that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
> > Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
> > package app-crap/FooBar
> 
> Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
> 
> for x in $( < /etc/profile.d/.default); do
> 	source "/etc/profile.d/${x}"
> done
> 
> That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
> users added it to the .default file.

If we do something like this, I'll rather not source it, but run it via
the current shell.  This should discourage devs to install stuff
touching the environment there rather than /etc/env.d/.

-----
# Append any additional sh scripts found in /etc/profile.d/:
for file in /etc/profile.d/*.sh ; do
	if [ -x "${file}" ] ; then
		"${file}"
	fi
done
-----


As for above, this is one of the examples why we rather did not add
it .. everybody want something added .. global control, per user
control, etc :/


-- 
Martin Schlemmer


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday 16 July 2005 02:08 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> I meant... Isn't this directory subject to developers installing
> custom .bashrc or .bash_profile, or whatever automatically executed on
> login?

no, because it would collide with the packages which are supposed to be 
installing files there

like bash
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday 16 July 2005 01:03 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
>
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> > that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
> > Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
> > package app-crap/FooBar
>
> Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
>
> for x in $( < /etc/profile.d/.default); do
> 	source "/etc/profile.d/${x}"
> done
>
> That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
> users added it to the .default file.

that kind of limits the intuitiveness of profile.d ... plus, not like they 
couldnt just do 'echo blah >> /etc/profile.d/.default' at the end of 
pkg_postinst or something
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday 16 July 2005 04:58 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 19:03 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> >
> > Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the point is
> > > that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont want random
> > > Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh into /etc/profile.d with
> > > package app-crap/FooBar
> >
> > Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
> >
> > for x in $( < /etc/profile.d/.default); do
> > 	source "/etc/profile.d/${x}"
> > done
> >
> > That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
> > users added it to the .default file.
>
> If we do something like this, I'll rather not source it, but run it via
> the current shell.  This should discourage devs to install stuff
> touching the environment there rather than /etc/env.d/.

that kind of limits the usefulness of profile.d then ... and again, not too 
intuitive when it comes to the behaviors users would expect
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 15 July 2005 11:16 pm, Aaron Walker wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer
> > abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a
> > file there, it should only ever contain files created by the user
> > -mike
>
> Hmm... what about bash-completion?  bash-completion has installed
> /etc/profile.d/bash-completion long before I took over maintaining it.

well it doesnt matter since nothing actually uses profile.d :P

but if we were to add profile.d support to baselayout, i would force you to 
remove this from bash-completion before hand
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Herbert Fischer]

All scripts created by Gentoo emerges have some header signature (sort
of cvs information), am I right?

If so, some sort of checking script can detect Gentoo signed files on
/etc/profile.d and just ignore them when scanning profile.d for user
scripts.

On 7/16/05, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Friday 15 July 2005 11:16 pm, Aaron Walker wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer
> > > abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a
> > > file there, it should only ever contain files created by the user
> > > -mike
> >
> > Hmm... what about bash-completion?  bash-completion has installed
> > /etc/profile.d/bash-completion long before I took over maintaining it.
> 
> well it doesnt matter since nothing actually uses profile.d :P
> 
> but if we were to add profile.d support to baselayout, i would force you to
> remove this from bash-completion before hand
> -mike
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday 16 July 2005 09:13 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> All scripts created by Gentoo emerges have some header signature (sort
> of cvs information), am I right?

not always
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1223 bytes --]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:22:29 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Saturday 16 July 2005 01:03 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> >
> > Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the
> > > point is that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont
> > > want random Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh
> > > into /etc/profile.d with package app-crap/FooBar
> >
> > Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
> >
> > for x in $( < /etc/profile.d/.default); do
> > 	source "/etc/profile.d/${x}"
> > done
> >
> > That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
> > users added it to the .default file.
> 
> that kind of limits the intuitiveness of profile.d ... plus, not like
> they couldnt just do 'echo blah >> /etc/profile.d/.default' at the
> end of pkg_postinst or something

They could do the same to /etc/profile, no?

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday 16 July 2005 10:38 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:22:29 -0400
>
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 July 2005 01:03 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:34:09 -0400
> > >
> > > Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > we could care less what users do with /etc/profile.d ... the
> > > > point is that *only* users should use /etc/profile.d ... we dont
> > > > want random Gentoo developer Foo installing some Bar.sh
> > > > into /etc/profile.d with package app-crap/FooBar
> > >
> > > Would the following in /et/profile be a solution to this problem?
> > >
> > > for x in $( < /etc/profile.d/.default); do
> > > 	source "/etc/profile.d/${x}"
> > > done
> > >
> > > That way devs could install stuff there, but it would only be run if
> > > users added it to the .default file.
> >
> > that kind of limits the intuitiveness of profile.d ... plus, not like
> > they couldnt just do 'echo blah >> /etc/profile.d/.default' at the
> > end of pkg_postinst or something
>
> They could do the same to /etc/profile, no?

yeah could which is why we could just do a QA smackdown on package maintainers 
who utilize /etc/profile.d ...

a quick grep shows that the following packages mention /etc/profile.d for some 
reason or another:
dev-util/aegis (but it seems to correctly remove support)
x11-base/xorg-x11 (no idea what it's trying to do with /etc/profile.d/xprint*)
app-shells/bash-completion
app-shells/tcsh
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: /etc/profile.d/

[Duncan]

Herbert Fischer posted <9f90e8bf050716181320b06312@mail.gmail.com>,
excerpted below,  on Sat, 16 Jul 2005 22:13:19 -0300:

> All scripts created by Gentoo emerges have some header signature (sort of
> cvs information), am I right?
> 
> If so, some sort of checking script can detect Gentoo signed files on
> /etc/profile.d and just ignore them when scanning profile.d for user
> scripts.

[Just picked a post in the thread to reply to...]

Here's the solution I use here.  

1.  My /etc/profile, as well as all user ~/.bashrc files (that is, my
personal user, and root, and I'd setup skel for it too, if my system was a
multiple human user system), consist almost /entirely/ of one single
conditional execution.  Note that I do *NOT* use the standard Gentoo
/etc/profile or /etc/bash/bashrc scripts.

# Source global definitions
if [ -f /etc/jedbashrc ]; then
        . /etc/jedbashrc
fi

The jed is my initials.  The idea is a namespace pollution guard -- I
don't have to worry about some package installing /etc/jedbashrc (and if
some package ever does, that's what portage's CONFIG_PROTECT is there for
=8^).

2.  cat /etc/jedbashrc

# REMINDER:  This is sourced by all bash shells on startup,
# including some such as scp and rcp that can't tolerate any output.

for i in /etc/profile.d/*; do
    if [ $i = ${i%\~} -a $i = ${i%.bak} -a $i = ${i#.} -a $i = ${i%.csh} ]; then
        . $i
    fi
done

This runs all the scripts in /etc/profile.d EXCEPT backup files (*.back
and *~), hidden files (.*), and the csh scripts (*.csh).  That's the
ENTIRE jedbashrc.

3. ls -1 /etc/profile.d

000profile.env.jed.sh
000user.jed.sh
010path.jed.sh
alias.jed.sh
bash-completion*
bash-hist.jed.sh
buildflags.jed.sh
editor.jed.sh
inputrc.jed.sh
noclobber.jed.sh
prompt.jed.sh
umask.jed.sh
xprint.sh*

bash-completion and xprint.sh, the portage installed scripts get executed
along with the others.  Again with the namespace pollution prevention
thing -- the other scripts are mine and clearly marked as such.

Most of these substitute for functionality in the Gentoo default
/etc/profile and ~/.bashrc files, but many of them are customized for my
own purposes.  (Among other things, I setup my path so the
/usr/local/(s)bin versions come first, thus making it dead simply to
substitute my own commands or wrapper scripts for Gentoo system defaults.)
Each task is modularized into its own file, the easier to maintain.

The 0xx scripts must be done first, as the others use stuff they setup. 
The 000user script sets up $USER, used by 010path, which in turn allows
the other scripts to invoke commands without the absolute path.  Other
than that, there's no specific order needed, so the straight names suffice.

...

The only hassle I have with this system, is that every time Gentoo updates
bash, I have to scan the new /etc/bash/bashrc and /etc/profile files, to
see if there's any serious changes in functionality I need to match with
new /etc/profile.d modules, or changes to existing modules.  However,
that's really only the same sort of thing a responsible sysadmin is always
doing, with updates to /etc, regardless of the package.  Because my
config is all non-default files, I don't have to worry about them being
overwritten.  The worst that could happen would be that my non-default
/etc/profile, simply a hook into my own config, would be overwritten by
the default.  That's simple enough to fix, if so, because there's only the
single (tested) command in my version, easy enough to create from scratch
if I fat-finger things and overwrite it.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 375 bytes --]

On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 22:48 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> x11-base/xorg-x11 (no idea what it's trying to do with /etc/profile.d/xprint*)

Don't know, don't care, don't use xprint. Pull it from your USE flags
and all will be well. =)

I don't actively maintain xorg's xprint support; that's largely provided
by patches from motivated contributors.

Thanks,
Donnie

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 18 July 2005 02:53 am, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 22:48 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > x11-base/xorg-x11 (no idea what it's trying to do with
> > /etc/profile.d/xprint*)
>
> Don't know, don't care, don't use xprint. Pull it from your USE flags
> and all will be well. =)

can we get you to actively remove the file then ?  or move it into the docs 
dir as like an example file, xprint.profile.d
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Donnie Berkholz]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mike Frysinger wrote:
| can we get you to actively remove the file then ?  or move it into the
docs
| dir as like an example file, xprint.profile.d

OK, all the ebuilds are putting them as docs now. If anyone actually
uses xprint and it breaks, let me know.

Thanks,
Donnie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFC3D+uXVaO67S1rtsRAmSIAKCXAI7DEB07O87xH6Ah0DJWZvPWFwCdEzlf
Tg5nNGJZjsQ2rwGXtEo/4JE=
=OCeu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 18 July 2005 07:47 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> | can we get you to actively remove the file then ?  or move it into the
>
> docs
>
> | dir as like an example file, xprint.profile.d
>
> OK, all the ebuilds are putting them as docs now. If anyone actually
> uses xprint and it breaks, let me know.

i dont see how it would seeing as how nothing uses profile.d :)

thanks though ... one package down !
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Donnie Berkholz]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mike Frysinger wrote:
| On Monday 18 July 2005 07:47 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
|
|>Mike Frysinger wrote:
|>| can we get you to actively remove the file then ?  or move it into the
|>
|>docs
|>
|>| dir as like an example file, xprint.profile.d
|>
|>OK, all the ebuilds are putting them as docs now. If anyone actually
|>uses xprint and it breaks, let me know.
|
|
| i dont see how it would seeing as how nothing uses profile.d :)

You wouldn't believe the weird crap that goes on with xprint. There
could be another file somewhere else that sources it and relies on it,
or something else even stranger.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFC3ETvXVaO67S1rtsRArA7AJ9bpoVd4oOx7uXoaYgeiMIKvuRQ6gCg3XWM
QXan/3t0KPS63DdDXhUhNeI=
=nFS0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Herbert Fischer]

So... profile.d have future on Gentoo? If yes, any idea on when this
will become part of baselayout. Please, I'm not compelling... just
curious.

On 7/18/05, Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@gentoo.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> | On Monday 18 July 2005 07:47 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> |
> |>Mike Frysinger wrote:
> |>| can we get you to actively remove the file then ?  or move it into the
> |>
> |>docs
> |>
> |>| dir as like an example file, xprint.profile.d
> |>
> |>OK, all the ebuilds are putting them as docs now. If anyone actually
> |>uses xprint and it breaks, let me know.
> |
> |
> | i dont see how it would seeing as how nothing uses profile.d :)
> 
> You wouldn't believe the weird crap that goes on with xprint. There
> could be another file somewhere else that sources it and relies on it,
> or something else even stranger.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQFC3ETvXVaO67S1rtsRArA7AJ9bpoVd4oOx7uXoaYgeiMIKvuRQ6gCg3XWM
> QXan/3t0KPS63DdDXhUhNeI=
> =nFS0
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 20 July 2005 03:27 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> So... profile.d have future on Gentoo? If yes, any idea on when this
> will become part of baselayout.

yes, we will add it when i can get all remaining packages cleared of profile.d

we have bash-completion and tcsh left
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Herbert Fischer]

Great!

Doing a grep on portage I found this another package with profile.d
things: dev-util/aegis

Thanks!

On 7/20/05, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 July 2005 03:27 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> > So... profile.d have future on Gentoo? If yes, any idea on when this
> > will become part of baselayout.
> 
> yes, we will add it when i can get all remaining packages cleared of profile.d
> 
> we have bash-completion and tcsh left
> -mike
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 20 July 2005 06:46 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> Doing a grep on portage I found this another package with profile.d
> things: dev-util/aegis

if you read back about 8 e-mails in this thread you'll see i noted this 
already but it should be ok as the package looks like it's removing the file, 
not installing it
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/profile.d/

[Herbert Fischer]

Ops... sorry.

On 7/20/05, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 July 2005 06:46 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
> > Doing a grep on portage I found this another package with profile.d
> > things: dev-util/aegis
> 
> if you read back about 8 e-mails in this thread you'll see i noted this
> already but it should be ok as the package looks like it's removing the file,
> not installing it
> -mike
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list