Re: gnome 49 doesn't source /etc/profile - what did I miss?

On Mon, 2025-12-15 at 12:20 +0100, Rainer Fiebig wrote:
> Am 15.12.25 um 03:35 schrieb "Douglas R. Reno"
> ([email protected] via blfs-support Mailing List):
> > On 12/14/25 7:51 PM, "Richard" ([email protected] via blfs-
> > support
> > Mailing List) wrote:
> > > I updated gnome to the version 49 as in the development systemd
> > > book. 
> > > Seemed
> > > like a good idea since glib and webkit needed replacement
> > > anyway.  It
> > > works
> > > fine, except environment looks like /etc/profile isn't sourced.
> > > For example, in a gnome terminal
> > > PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/
> > > sbin:/usr/bin
> > > 
> > > Any idea of what I missed?  i.e. any changes to the /etc/ files?
> > > 
> > > Thanks very much in advance.
> > > 
> > This is a known issue that I'm still working on a solution for. The
> The only person who found a solution for undoing the Gordian knot was
> Alexander the Great.  The equivalent for untangling the Gnomian knot
> in
> BLFS would be something like this:
> 
> 	sed 's/gnome/mate/' -i BLFS
> 
> This may seem a harsh decision but at times such are unavoidable to
> free
> oneself from the mess that other people created.
> 
> Supplanting simple and proven solutions by ever more complicated and
> hard to change ones is an ill trend.  It may make sense in a strange,
> user-free parallel universe.  But only there.
> 
> Just my humble point of view.
> 
> Rainer

Using fire to cook on and heat your home was a simple and proven
solution. Yet I don't think many people will want to go back to that.

If everybody stuck to your advice we would still be in the middle ages.

I understand the concepts of both SYSV and systemd. To me the one is
not more complicated to use than the other. Yet the second has much
more potential. Its just a mindset. 
-- 
=================================================
Maurice van der Stee

-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/blfs-support
Unsubscribe: See the above information page