Subject: [bug#78308] [PATCH v3 10/10] news: Add news entry for etc-bashrc-d-service-type.

From: Maxim Cournoyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 08:39:17 +0900

Hi Sergey,

Sergey Trofimov <[email-masked]> writes:

> Hi Maxim
>
> Maxim Cournoyer <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> * etc/news.scm (channel-news): New entry.
> [...]
>> + (entry (commit "XXX")
>> +        (title
>> +         (en "New services for /etc/profile.d and /etc/bashrc.d"))
>> +        (body
>> +         (en "Two new Shepherd services, @code{etc-profile-d-service-type} and
>> +@code{etc-bashrc-d-service-type}, can now be used to configure and extend your
>>
> these are not Shepherd services, right?

At the core, they are, but they are wrapped with some sugar in Guix, so
perhaps I can say just 'services' or 'Guix services'.

> also, I wonder if `etc/profile` produced by `build-etc/profile` should
> also source files in corresponing `etc/profile.d`. This would allow
> packages install shell profile extensions and it would fix e.g.
> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/44997

That would be useful, but there's one issue I see, is that the Red
Hat/Fedora have standardized on /etc/profile.d/ as the place to put any
shell extension scripts, which are even sourced for example by
/etc/bashrc, which is a bit odd to me: /etc/profile is for interactive
login shells, and /etc/profile.d should logically follow, it seems.

Having /etc/profile.d instead of /etc/bashrc.d also means that scripts
placed there must be POSIX compliant or contain conditional guards for
the specific Shell they target.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim