.bash_profile not run when using graphical login

[John]

Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 05:24:10AM +0800, John wrote:
> 
>>Ross Burton wrote:
>>
>>>Debian Policy says packages should work with no environmental variables
>>>defined.  For the Java example, this is why there are /usr/bin/java
>>>(etc.) alternatives which JVMs register with.
>>
>>This isn't Debian. Debian won't package firmware for wireless cards either.
>>
>>I don't think, haven't checked, that that _is_ what Debian policy says - 
>>it's not what those who know have said.
> 
> 
>      A program must not depend on environment variables to get reasonable
>      defaults.  (That's because these environment variables would have to
>      be set in a system-wide configuration file like `/etc/profile', which
>      is not supported by all shells.)
> 
> 
>>Practically nothing works that way.
>>
>>PATH is an environment variable.
>>BASH can be configured with environment variables.

PATH is an environment variable.
BASH can be configured with environment variables.



>>
>>Besides, I think putting configuration files for the user to customise 
>>into /etc/profile.d is configuring with configuration files. I'm only a 
>>stoopid user but, and Debian doesn't listen to stoopid users. What do 
>>they know?
> 
> 
> Debian is trying to make things *easier* for users here, by stamping out
> the practice of requiring lots of obscure little environment variables
> to make a program work at all. I realize that Ubuntu is not Debian, but
> I think Debian is doing exactly the right thing here.

I don't see how something as difficult for packagers to get working for 
users is beneficial to users.

> 
> If /etc/profile.d were ever added, it should be absolutely forbidden for
> packages to put anything there.

Why?



> Also, Debian is trying to make things easier for users by observing that
> different shells have different syntax requirements, and /etc/profile.d
> cannot cover them all; this greatly reduces user confusion. Your edits
> to /etc/profile.d will not have any effect on tcsh users.

On Suse it seems to coe with three. on RH it's always managed two.
/etc/profile.d/*.sh is for sh
/etc/profile.d/*.csh is for csh
/etc/profile.d/*.bash is for bash


All I have ever seen from DDs is "We are right. They are wrong." Rarely 
if ever and explanation of why this might be so, or even an indication 
that they understand how the others do things.

The others have lots of users, maybe they do some things well?