Re: base-files revisited
- Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 18:56:33 +0200
- From: Achim Gratz <Stromeko@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: base-files revisited
John Morrison writes:
> I've been asked at work to get the standard base-files extended with
> specifics for the company I work for and wondered if this would be a good
> time to revisit how the .bashrc file in particular is put together.
> What I was considering would be introducing a ~/.bashrc.d/ folder and
> splitting the existing ~/.bashrc file into its component parts;
> * alias.bashrc
> * completion.bashrc
> * functions.bashrc
> * history.bashrc
> * shell.bashrc
> * umask.bashrc
> and changing .bashrc to source all the *.bashrc files.
> This would allow easier extension of the bashrc with, in my case, company
> specific options (proxies, common aliases etc).
Been there, done that. You'll end up providing one or more company
specific packages either as an overlay repository or merged into a local
mirror repository. That is unless you only have a handful of users that
either can and actually do follow instructions or you can handhold them
during their installations. If you provide a company config package all
you need to do is make sure it gets installed last (or arrange for the
postinstall to do all the work and move that to a late place). Once
you've replaced the default files setup (or rather the respective
postinstalls) will keep them untouched.
> I was also thinking of taking some more of the sample from
> https://www.tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/sample-bashrc.html, for example the
> colours and some more of the aliases and adding them into the existing sets.
None of that strikes me as desirable to enable by default.
> I think Achim Gratz took over the base-files from me. Achim, are you still
> around? Open for a discussion?
Tentatively, I'd say what you want to do doesn't belong into base-files.
That is supposed to provide a clean starting point (mostly to work
around some quirks of how Windows leaves your environment) and treat all
POSIX shells the same to the extent possible, not create even more
differences than there are out of the gate. There already are hooks in
profile to enable your own scripting if that's what you want and
anything that is purely bash-specific would need to go into its own
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+
Factory and User Sound Singles for Waldorf rackAttack:
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple