Question about profile.d scripts definition in Spec file

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 16:29:06 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote:

> >> A) if a shell script can be treated as configuration file?
> > 
> > Certainly. It's a cheap way to set a program's runtime configuration
> > instead of implementing a full config file loader/parser.
> 
> My image of configuration files is that they are files for read/write
> purpose by design, because they enables _configure_ something
> (application, service, single program, script...whatever). If they are
> dedicated only for reading then from my point of view they lose
> "configuration" meaning (something like WORM storage ;-) ).

Why would you say that?

There are read-only config files to set the system-wide default for
everyone. The program reads them first before looking for user's local
config files to override the defaults. The program would never write
the system-wide file file in /etc, but at most the user's local file.

And in general, whether a program can write its own config files is purely
a question of design. Clearly, over the years there have been programs that
only read config files somebody [or some tool] can create.

/etc/bashrc, /etc/profile are examples of %config files where the file
format is shell language code to be interpreted by a shell.

> >> B) does in rpmlint aspect non-executable mean 'without execute
> >> permissions' or 'non-executable at all' (directly and by any interpreter) ?
> > 
> > It refers to the exec permission bit. Executables files in /etc being
> > marked as %config would be another mistake.
> 
> If rpmlint refers 'non-executable' only to the exec permission, what I
> believe takes place, and the contents of the file that matter for
> determine 'executable/non-executable' type, it means that rpmlint search
> 'executable' property not there where it should search.
> 
> Partially I understand this searching for executable files because it
> might be difficult clearly qualify some file to some specific type of
> files basing on a file content or just interpreter definition.
> 
> However I believe that exist some tools or libraries that can do this
> content analyze for rpmlint.

What would be the benefit?  rpmlint cannot get it 100% right
anyway. There could be corner-cases, where a config file gets executed
instead of being "sourced" like a shell include file.

> > It's some sort of white-list to assume that files in /etc meant to be
> > executed (such as initscripts related files) are not configuration
> > files in any way. Admin may decide to edit such executables nevertheless
> > (for reasons unknown), but the next update would overwrite the changes.
> 
> Good to know that mentioned white-list exists. Could you indicate me
> where can I find this white-list?

With "some sort of white-list" I mean the simplification -- the
simplified assumption -- that files with execute permission are
believed to be executables and not configuration files. And vice
versa. Real configuration files being marked executable are believed
to be mistakes.