Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > gnu.bash.bug > #12119
| From | Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | gnu.bash.bug |
| Subject | Re: Feature discussion - startup files |
| Date | 2015-12-23 09:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.454.1450882321.843.bug-bash@gnu.org> (permalink) |
| References | <56785EE2.3050108@case.edu> <1450739858.4716.5.camel@16bits.net> |
On 12/21/15 6:17 PM, Ángel González wrote: > Chet Ramey wrote: >> The current configurable startup file options are insufficient for >> their purposes because they can be enabled or disabled by vendors, >> and these folks would rather not modify the "vendor" parts of the >> system. In some cases, with some Linux distributions, doing so voids >> their support. > > How are they going to deal with vendors disabling the new configuration > file, too? The idea is that by making it an unconditional option that is on by default, vendors will be discouraged from changing it. It's an optimistic perspective, no doubt. > "Create a new configuration file" is the wrong "solution" to "the > vendor disables existing configuration files". As I said, the vendor is the obstacle here. (And it's not `the vendor', its the multitude of them that make different choices.) -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU chet@case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
Back to gnu.bash.bug | Previous | Next | Find similar
Re: Feature discussion - startup files Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> - 2015-12-23 09:51 -0500
csiph-web