Re: profile.d [was Re: UMASK 002 or 022?]

[Francesco Tapparo <ftapparo@ntt.it>]

On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 12:04:01PM -0400, Brian Mays wrote:
> ftapparo@ntt.it (Francesco Tapparo) writes:
> 
> > Uhm. I think that the more clean solution would be to modify ls to
> > read a config file /etc/lsrc. I know that this can sound strange, but
> > the config file would solve all these shell compatibility problem in
> > a clean way.  Of course if an option is given in the command line,
> > or if the appropriate environment value is set, they would have the
> > precedence.  The color options (what color for what file) from ls
> > would be another thing to put in that /etc/lsrc.
> 
> I really don't think that ls has *so* many features that we need to add
> a configuration file.  If you really need to set up your system to run
> ls in a preferred fashion, write a /usr/local/bin/ls (or $HOME/bin/ls)
> wrapper script that adds your preferred options.

Yes, I realize that a configuration file for ls sounds strange.I was only
trying to find a clean solution to the problem of setting the colors for ls
indipendently from the shell.
Right now the method is to do an 

`dircolors`
alias ls='ls --color=auto'

this has the proble that some shell do not support aliases (the mail I've
replied to was searching a solution to this problem).

the standard way to customize the color is to put an appopirate configuation
file in /etc/foo and then call 
`dircolors /etc/foo`

before the alias.

So we are alreadsy using a configuration file for the customization (only it
is not installled by default). So put the color options in a configuration
file for ls is not so strange. And we would solve the problem of the
dependency from the shell.


> 
> - Brian

cheers

-- 
Francesco Tapparo				 |	cesco@debian.org
fight for your software freedoms: www.fsf.org    |      tapparo@mat.unimi.it