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

Am 15.12.25 um 12:48 schrieb Maurice van der Stee ([email protected] via
blfs-support Mailing List):
> 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.
I'd say that "many people" - if not the majority - actually still depend
on fire for cooking and heating, directly or indirectly.  Fuel for it
comes in many forms: gas, oil, coal, wood (pellets) or even waste
(long-distance-heating), you name it.

> 
> If everybody stuck to your advice we would still be in the middle ages.
On the contrary.  In more than one area, the crowd was five to ten years
behind me.

> 
> 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. 
I certainly don't mind alternate solutions to a problem.  As long as
they leave room for freedom of choice and don't try to establish
monopolies.  "Diversity" is one of the buzzwords of our time, you can
find it in any old COC.  And I don't know why this should not be valued
for technical solutions as well.

Rainer

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