The zsh config files in http://isd.usc.edu/~ehatteme/zsh/zshetc.tar.bz2 (link of ./zsh-etc-1-30-01PST.tar.bz2) are ready for submission. I just cleaned them up a little bit since the 1-26 version. The only file that is different from the original is /etc/zshrc. It may be better to split the changes up into the other files, but I don't fully understand the standard for what changes go into which file. Its probably not critical, and zshrc seems like a good place to put them. I would like to remove /etc/skel/.zshrc because it is not expected that someone will install zsh before adding users. All it does is source /etc/profile, which I moved into /etc/zshrc. If there are no suggestions or objections that haven't been added yet, Warren will notify Petersen, the zsh maintainer, he will review the files, modify them as necessary, and put them into the next fedora zsh release. Please look these over, decide if there is anything strange, lacking documentation, incompatible, or non-standard, or if you have better preferences.
-Eric Hattemer
Hi Eric,
"EH" == Eric Hattemer hattenator@imapmail.org writes:
EH> The zsh config files in EH> http://isd.usc.edu/~ehatteme/zsh/zshetc.tar.bz2 EH> (link of ./zsh-etc-1-30-01PST.tar.bz2) are ready for EH> submission.
Thanks. :)
Actually it would be good if you could put this rfe into bugzilla. That way I won't forgot about it: though I hope to take a look at it before too long, it would be very good to have a record of the changes there.
EH> I would like to remove /etc/skel/.zshrc EH> because it is not expected that someone will install EH> zsh before adding users. All it does is source EH> /etc/profile, which I moved into /etc/zshrc.
Well, no there is a reason for that, see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65509.
Jens
Thanks. :)
Actually it would be good if you could put this rfe into bugzilla. That way I won't forgot about it: though I hope to take a look at it before too long, it would be very good to have a record of the changes there.
I will file it two days from now. Sorry that I don't have time at the moment.
EH> I would like to remove /etc/skel/.zshrc EH> because it is not expected that someone will install EH> zsh before adding users. All it does is source EH> /etc/profile, which I moved into /etc/zshrc.
Well, no there is a reason for that, see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65509.
There is some good discussion there, but I am considering reopening that bug to get some more ideas about the situation. I suppose the situation is that redhat wants to give people the ability not to source in bash /etc/bashrc, or /etc/profile, and allow them to not source in zsh /etc/zshrc or /etc/profile. That sounds fair that the default .zshrc can allow them to decide on whether to source the /etc/profile. But the reason bash can get away with putting things in skel is that its automatically installed before adduser root, right? zsh is likely to be added after users are added, and therefore would not copy over the skel .zshrc, right? Unless the rpm checks to see if each user has a ~/.zshrc, this may be a problem. This is why I thought sourcing /etc/profile should be done in /etc/z*, but I suppose that doesn't give the user a choice to not source /etc/profile. Maybe there is a solution that would allow all of this to work together.
-Eric Hattemer
Thanks. :)
Actually it would be good if you could put this rfe into bugzilla. That way I won't forgot about it: though I hope to take a look at it before too long, it would be very good to have a record of the changes there.
I will file it two days from now. Sorry that I don't have time at the moment.
EH> I would like to remove /etc/skel/.zshrc EH> because it is not expected that someone will install EH> zsh before adding users. All it does is source EH> /etc/profile, which I moved into /etc/zshrc.
Well, no there is a reason for that, see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65509.
There is some good discussion there, but I am considering reopening that bug to get some more ideas about the situation. I suppose the situation is that redhat wants to give people the ability not to source in bash /etc/bashrc, or /etc/profile, and allow them to not source in zsh /etc/zshrc or /etc/profile. That sounds fair that the default .zshrc can allow them to decide on whether to source the /etc/profile. But the reason bash can get away with putting things in skel is that its automatically installed before adduser root, right? zsh is likely to be added after users are added, and therefore would not copy over the skel .zshrc, right? Unless the rpm checks to see if each user has a ~/.zshrc, this may be a problem. This is why I thought sourcing /etc/profile should be done in /etc/z*, but I suppose that doesn't give the user a choice to not source /etc/profile. I installed zsh after my root and eric users. Does the fedora installer copy over /etc/skel/.zshrc after it adds users? Maybe there is a solution that would allow all of this to work together.
-Eric Hattemer
Thanks. :)
Actually it would be good if you could put this rfe into bugzilla. That way I won't forgot about it: though I hope to take a look at it before too long, it would be very good to have a record of the changes there.
I will file it two days from now. Sorry that I don't have time at the moment.
EH> I would like to remove /etc/skel/.zshrc EH> because it is not expected that someone will install EH> zsh before adding users. All it does is source EH> /etc/profile, which I moved into /etc/zshrc.
Well, no there is a reason for that, see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65509.
There is some good discussion there, but I am considering reopening that bug to get some more ideas about the situation. I suppose the situation is that redhat wants to give people the ability not to source in bash /etc/bashrc, or /etc/profile, and allow them to not source in zsh /etc/zshrc or /etc/profile. That sounds fair that the default .zshrc can allow them to decide on whether to source the /etc/profile. But the reason bash can get away with putting things in skel is that its automatically installed before adduser root, right? zsh is likely to be added after users are added, and therefore would not copy over the skel .zshrc, right? Unless the rpm checks to see if each user has a ~/.zshrc, this may be a problem. This is why I thought sourcing /etc/profile should be done in /etc/z*, but I suppose that doesn't give the user a choice to not source /etc/profile. I installed zsh after my root and eric users. Does the fedora installer copy over /etc/skel/.zshrc after it adds users? Maybe there is a solution that would allow all of this to work together.
-Eric Hattemer
Thanks. :)
Actually it would be good if you could put this rfe into bugzilla. That way I won't forgot about it: though I hope to take a look at it before too long, it would be very good to have a record of the changes there.
I will file it two days from now. Sorry that I don't have time at the moment.
EH> I would like to remove /etc/skel/.zshrc EH> because it is not expected that someone will install EH> zsh before adding users. All it does is source EH> /etc/profile, which I moved into /etc/zshrc.
Well, no there is a reason for that, see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65509.
There is some good discussion there, but I am considering reopening that bug to get some more ideas about the situation. I suppose the situation is that redhat wants to give people the ability not to source in bash /etc/bashrc, or /etc/profile, and allow them to not source in zsh /etc/zshrc or /etc/profile. That sounds fair that the default .zshrc can allow them to decide on whether to source the /etc/profile. But the reason bash can get away with putting things in skel is that its automatically installed before adduser root, right? zsh is likely to be added after users are added, and therefore would not copy over the skel .zshrc, right? Unless the rpm checks to see if each user has a ~/.zshrc, this may be a problem. This is why I thought sourcing /etc/profile should be done in /etc/z*, but I suppose that doesn't give the user a choice to not source /etc/profile. I installed zsh after my root and eric users. Does the fedora installer copy over /etc/skel/.zshrc after it adds users? Maybe there is a solution that would allow all of this to work together.
-Eric Hattemer
Thanks. :)
Actually it would be good if you could put this rfe into bugzilla. That way I won't forgot about it: though I hope to take a look at it before too long, it would be very good to have a record of the changes there.
I will file it two days from now. Sorry that I don't have time at the moment.
EH> I would like to remove /etc/skel/.zshrc EH> because it is not expected that someone will install EH> zsh before adding users. All it does is source EH> /etc/profile, which I moved into /etc/zshrc.
Well, no there is a reason for that, see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65509.
There is some good discussion there, but I am considering reopening that bug to get some more ideas about the situation. I suppose the situation is that redhat wants to give people the ability not to source in bash /etc/bashrc, or /etc/profile, and allow them to not source in zsh /etc/zshrc or /etc/profile. That sounds fair that the default .zshrc can allow them to decide on whether to source the /etc/profile. But the reason bash can get away with putting things in skel is that its automatically installed before adduser root, right? zsh is likely to be added after users are added, and therefore would not copy over the skel .zshrc, right? Unless the rpm checks to see if each user has a ~/.zshrc, this may be a problem. This is why I thought sourcing /etc/profile should be done in /etc/z*, but I suppose that doesn't give the user a choice to not source /etc/profile. I installed zsh after my root and eric users. Does the fedora installer copy over /etc/skel/.zshrc after it adds users? Maybe there is a solution that would allow all of this to work together.
-Eric Hattemer
Thanks. :)
Actually it would be good if you could put this rfe into bugzilla. That way I won't forgot about it: though I hope to take a look at it before too long, it would be very good to have a record of the changes there.
I will file it two days from now. Sorry that I don't have time at the moment.
EH> I would like to remove /etc/skel/.zshrc EH> because it is not expected that someone will install EH> zsh before adding users. All it does is source EH> /etc/profile, which I moved into /etc/zshrc.
Well, no there is a reason for that, see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65509.
There is some good discussion there, but I am considering reopening that bug to get some more ideas about the situation. I suppose the situation is that redhat wants to give people the ability not to source in bash /etc/bashrc, or /etc/profile, and allow them to not source in zsh /etc/zshrc or /etc/profile. That sounds fair that the default .zshrc can allow them to decide on whether to source the /etc/profile. But the reason bash can get away with putting things in skel is that its automatically installed before adduser root, right? zsh is likely to be added after users are added, and therefore would not copy over the skel .zshrc, right? Unless the rpm checks to see if each user has a ~/.zshrc, this may be a problem. This is why I thought sourcing /etc/profile should be done in /etc/z*, but I suppose that doesn't give the user a choice to not source /etc/profile. I installed zsh after my root and eric users. Does the fedora installer copy over /etc/skel/.zshrc after it adds users? Maybe there is a solution that would allow all of this to work together.
-Eric Hattemer
sorry everyone, my smtp server was broken. This will never happen again.
-Eric Hattemer
Eric Hattemer wrote:
Thanks. :)
Actually it would be good if you could put this rfe into bugzilla. That way I won't forgot about it: though I hope to take a look at it before too long, it would be very good to have a record of the changes there.
I will file it two days from now. Sorry that I don't have time at the moment.
EH> I would like to remove /etc/skel/.zshrc EH> because it is not expected that someone will install EH> zsh before adding users. All it does is source EH> /etc/profile, which I moved into /etc/zshrc.
Well, no there is a reason for that, see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65509.
There is some good discussion there, but I am considering reopening that bug to get some more ideas about the situation. I suppose the situation is that redhat wants to give people the ability not to source in bash /etc/bashrc, or /etc/profile, and allow them to not source in zsh /etc/zshrc or /etc/profile. That sounds fair that the default .zshrc can allow them to decide on whether to source the /etc/profile. But the reason bash can get away with putting things in skel is that its automatically installed before adduser root, right? zsh is likely to be added after users are added, and therefore would not copy over the skel .zshrc, right? Unless the rpm checks to see if each user has a ~/.zshrc, this may be a problem. This is why I thought sourcing /etc/profile should be done in /etc/z*, but I suppose that doesn't give the user a choice to not source /etc/profile. I installed zsh after my root and eric users. Does the fedora installer copy over /etc/skel/.zshrc after it adds users? Maybe there is a solution that would allow all of this to work together. -Eric Hattemer
I just had a thought...
Would something like this be inappropriate?
If the user runs zsh and ~/.zshrc does not exist but /etc/skel/.zshrc does exist, then copy it into their home directory. Only a small patch to zsh would allow this, and this should not have any drawbacks.
Thoughts?
Warren
On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 09:31, Warren Togami wrote:
I just had a thought...
Would something like this be inappropriate?
If the user runs zsh and ~/.zshrc does not exist but /etc/skel/.zshrc does exist, then copy it into their home directory. Only a small patch to zsh would allow this, and this should not have any drawbacks.
Hmm, somehow this doesn't feel good to me. I'm not a zsh user, but a shell automatically installing a default configuration -- when it would work flawlessly without -- seems strange in my book. If you could get upstream to accept that change, I'd see it differently. At last admins or the zsh user himslef can easily do that manually (admins for all users if they desire to).
Nils
Considering that other shells don't do this, it seems strange, although not fundamentally wrong. Someone might delete their .zshrc on purpose, then get it back the next day automatically. But also, if someone ftped into their account, saw all these . files, and randomly started deleting them because they didn't understand them, at least zsh would automatically rebuild that stuff. That's a problem at my university where a .login file is necessary for the default csh to function almost at all. So I agree it would be something you'd have to get zsh.org to accept, and it'd be controversial and different, though not neccessarily logically wrong.
-Eric Hattemer
Nils Philippsen wrote:
On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 09:31, Warren Togami wrote:
I just had a thought...
Would something like this be inappropriate?
If the user runs zsh and ~/.zshrc does not exist but /etc/skel/.zshrc does exist, then copy it into their home directory. Only a small patch to zsh would allow this, and this should not have any drawbacks.
Hmm, somehow this doesn't feel good to me. I'm not a zsh user, but a shell automatically installing a default configuration -- when it would work flawlessly without -- seems strange in my book. If you could get upstream to accept that change, I'd see it differently. At last admins or the zsh user himslef can easily do that manually (admins for all users if they desire to).
Nils
On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 11:27, Eric Hattemer wrote:
Considering that other shells don't do this, it seems strange, although not fundamentally wrong. Someone might delete their .zshrc on purpose, then get it back the next day automatically. But also, if someone ftped into their account, saw all these . files, and randomly started deleting them because they didn't understand them, at least zsh would automatically rebuild that stuff. That's a problem at my university where a .login file is necessary for the default csh to function almost
I'd say the user just mustn't do that then ;-). The user can also accidentally move some binary craft into .zshrc which would probably cause it to go berserk and eat his mail ;-). I agree that it would be nice to detect such screwups and _ask_ the user if the default configuration shall be installed over the binary cruft the shell found. But a missing .zshrc is a very valid configuration for me, so that wouldn't apply here.
at all. So I agree it would be something you'd have to get zsh.org to accept, and it'd be controversial and different, though not neccessarily logically wrong.
Nils
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, Warren Togami wrote:
I just had a thought...
Would something like this be inappropriate?
If the user runs zsh and ~/.zshrc does not exist but /etc/skel/.zshrc does exist, then copy it into their home directory. Only a small patch to zsh would allow this, and this should not have any drawbacks.
Yes, it would be inappropriate. Long-standing semantics for /etc/skel is that putting files there copies them to new user accounts when new user accounts are created, not magically at other times. If you need magic, write a shell script and run it to update existing accounts....
Changing that for one config file only would be inconsistent. Changing it for everything would make Fedora behave differently than most other Unixen.
later, chris
-
Chris Ricker -
Eric Hattemer -
Jens-Ulrik Petersen -
Nils Philippsen -
Warren Togami