Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
FS#63618 - [filesystem] /etc/profile - proposal of change
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by marcin82 (marcin82) - Sunday, 01 September 2019, 12:28 GMT
Last edited by Sébastien Luttringer (seblu) - Saturday, 02 May 2020, 10:25 GMT
Opened by marcin82 (marcin82) - Sunday, 01 September 2019, 12:28 GMT
Last edited by Sébastien Luttringer (seblu) - Saturday, 02 May 2020, 10:25 GMT
|
DetailsDescription:
I have proposal to move "# Source global bash config" section before "# Load profiles from /etc/profile.d" to avoid overwriting PS1 variable **if someone wants to define/customize global shell preferences** in /etc/profile.d/*.sh instead of editing /etc/profile or /etc/bash.bashrc with future *.pacnew files handling. For comparison: - Debian, package: base-files, /etc/profile - Fedora, package: setup, /etc/profile, as in Arch, but /etc/bash.bashrc sources once more all /etc/profile.d/*.sh files (redundant operation). |
This task depends upon
Closed by Sébastien Luttringer (seblu)
Saturday, 02 May 2020, 10:25 GMT
Reason for closing: Won't implement
Saturday, 02 May 2020, 10:25 GMT
Reason for closing: Won't implement
What is the problem with treating /etc/bash.bashrc like the backup file it is, editing it directly, and merging your .pacnew in the quite uncommon cases it changes?
What is wrong with expecting users to customize their highly personal prompt in their own dotfiles?
Does it mean, that PS1 of bash, underlying of "base" group with about ~70 files with shebang "#!/bin/bash" in standard desktop installation, shouldn't work too, being overwritten by /etc/bash.bashrc because of tricky syntax of /etc/profile? If /etc/zshrc would ever exist with PROMPT= definition, PROMPT in /etc/profile.d/* would be also overwritten...
> What is the problem with treating /etc/bash.bashrc like the backup file it is, editing it directly, and merging your .pacnew in the quite uncommon cases it changes?
Because maintaining of one file independently in /etc/profile.d/ is more comfortable that interfering with system standard config? What is wrong in it than one can have his own opinion and using /etc/profile.d to purposes it was created?
> What is wrong with expecting users to customize their highly personal prompt in their own dotfiles?
What is wrong with, even for two profiles, if I want to have some common settings, and PS1 various for user/root, defined (by if statement) in one central file instead of doubled lines in ~/.bashrc files?
You know what? I'm not here to judge. Judging is role for developers. My role is waiting for decision.
While /etc/bash.bashrc is a bash only, Arch specific, resource file loaded when started interactive and non-login.
/etc/profile.d could definitively be used to avoid edition of /etc/profile.
But, putting bash global config (like PS1) into /etc/profile* is a bad idea.
We could image adding the same kind of include mechanism for global bashrc, and have /etc/bash.bashrc source /etc/bash.bashrc.d/*.
While I'm personally fan of .d configuration mechanism, this doesn't look like a popular request and, as Eli pointed, editing bash.bashrc is something expected.
Anyway, if this change is desirable, it should be made in bash package.