Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:50:38 -0600 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>, Remko Lodder <remko@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removal of /etc/skel, your opinions please Message-ID: <20071130145038.GB87073@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <20071130124258.P56931@fledge.watson.org> References: <17978.194.74.82.3.1196407530.squirrel@galain.elvandar.org> <20071130101651.4h9nvpztkwcg8o84@webmail.leidinger.net> <20071130124258.P56931@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--LpQ9ahxlCli8rRTG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 12:44:18PM +0000, Robert Watson wrote: > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Alexander Leidinger wrote: >=20 >> Quoting Remko Lodder <remko@FreeBSD.org> (from Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:25:30= =20 >> +0100 (CET)): >>=20 >>> On Thu, November 29, 2007 10:47 am, Alexander Leidinger wrote: >>>> Quoting Remko Lodder <remko@FreeBSD.org> (from Wed, 28 Nov 2007 >>>> 22:21:06 +0100): >>>>> Dear arch@ members, >>>>> I would like to remove /etc/skel from the BSD.root.dist mtree file=20 >>>>> since it is no longer being used and I would like to remove unused=20 >>>>> items. >>=20 >>>> Not an objection, just something to think about: Do we want to depreca= te=20 >>>> the use of "adduser -k /etc/skel"? I know you said you just want to=20 >>>> remove the directory, and every admin is allowed to create it again, b= ut=20 >>>> by removing the directory from the mtree file, we give a signal into t= he=20 >>>> direction of deprecation. >>=20 >>> You do have a point there actually :-), what we can do in the install= =20 >>> phase (initially "make distribution", later on when the system is alrea= dy=20 >>> installed, manage this through "mergemaster") is install all files from= =20 >>> /usr/share/skel to /etc/skel and actually use it. >>> If we dont want to do that, why should we keep on carrying the director= y=20 >>> then? >>=20 >> I have a local patch to adduser which adds /usr/local/share/skel (so 2= =20 >> directories are used by default). Now I think it may be better to change= =20 >> this to use /etc/skel instead, and to do it in a way that /etc/skel=20 >> overrides /usr/share/skel. Looks more usable to me. What do you think? >=20 > Sounds like a quite reasonable argument could be made for having=20 > mergemaster install and manage /etc/skel so that when sites customize=20 > /etc/skel, mergemaster can be used to manage those customizations over=20 > time. Alternatively, mergemaster could manage /usr/share/skel. I think that in addition to having "make distribution" populate /etc/skel we should change useradd to take files from there instead of or in addition to /usr/share/skel (I prefer "instead of" because at least two of the files in /usr/share/skel are useless for the 99.999% of unix users who don't read their mail with main(1)). -- Brooks [0] I've met one person who used main(1) with serious intent. --LpQ9ahxlCli8rRTG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHUCM+XY6L6fI4GtQRAuf3AJ4hgJ0RYbFHIELQwyqnJK7P183/+wCeIZWm r+R7LK5ntAyQlFTN63XUVEg= =2T3D -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LpQ9ahxlCli8rRTG--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071130145038.GB87073>