Bugfix: bash_completion configuration line is not append if the PROFILE variable is set to /etc/bashrc (which is a valid bashrc file). #2569
Conversation
…LE variable is set to /etc/bashrc (which is a valid bashrc file).
| @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ nvm_profile_is_bash_or_zsh() { | |||
| local TEST_PROFILE | |||
| TEST_PROFILE="${1-}" | |||
| case "${TEST_PROFILE-}" in | |||
| *"/.bashrc" | *"/.bash_profile" | *"/.zshrc") | |||
| *"/.bashrc" | *"/.bash_profile" | *"/.zshrc" | "/etc/bashrc") | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
that looks like a global profile file. nvm is strictly per-user - why would we want it in a non-user-specific bashrc?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi ljharb, for example in a context of a Vagrant deployment: as we act as root during provision command, it is easy to deploy it like this if I want to use my company domain credentials instead of the basic vagrant user. I understand the per-user vision of nvm of course, but it is quite sad to restrict it like this no ? :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure but in that environment you don’t need the install script - you can set it up manually in your vagrantfile.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Of course I can install it manually, but there is an install script... Anyway, I don't insist. Maybe something you can put in your roadmap is to ensure the user is not providing a "system" PROFILE file, because it leads to bad behavior during installation. Last question before closing this thread: Why this tool is per-user only ? What prevent the tool to run correctly if it is installed in a global location ? :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because if it’s global, then non-root users will be forced to try to use sudo to install global packages or alter installed node versions, and one of the primary benefits of nvm is that you never ever need sudo once installing it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it only a question of permission ? Because I obviously got it that nvm configuration would be shared across multiple non-root users. But in my case, we are dealing with personal virtual machines creation only used by one user. And in my example, I deployed it inside a non-root writable directory /opt/nvm so no sudo needed. Is there an undefined nvm behavior in a global configuration context ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, with all those caveats you'll be fine - in that case you're using it for a single user, it's just that that user happens to be root (altho, it's a better idea to have your main user in a vagrant/docker image not be root).
Given all the constraints though, I don't think it's a good idea to account for that in common code paths.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Users are not root, just authorized to write things in the nvm directory ;) OK, let's cancel that Pull Request. To me there is still something to fix somewhere because the message shown during the installation: => bash_completion source string already in /etc/bashrc (which is wrong) should not appear, or something should prevent to handle other than user PFOFILE files.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I totally agree that seems wrong; maybe you could update this PR to improve the message?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually, the vision of keeping nvm per user is great, because some peoples has no sudo acces on their computers. I'm using nvm in my work computer and developers has not priviliges to use sudo in my company and no rights to write things to root directory for security purposes.
ljharb
added
the
needs followup
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
Sorry, something went wrong.
All is described in the Pull Request title. Linked issue: #2568