From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C96FC0C96
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:12:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 23CD8317E2
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:12:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:12:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4E25D4785E
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:12:02 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <64d5051c-8ed4-45af-998c-5399eb8d47ad@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:12:01 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
References: <574369b4-4ba1-4e47-a451-3291c53a1daf@proxmox.com>
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <574369b4-4ba1-4e47-a451-3291c53a1daf@proxmox.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <574369b4-4ba1-4e47-a451-3291c53a1daf@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.075 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH docs 1/2] ssh: make pitfalls a regular
 section instead of block
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:12:03 -0000

Am 12.01.24 um 13:40 schrieb Esi Y:
>> @@ -918,9 +918,9 @@ transfer memory and disk contents.
>>  
>>  * Storage replication
>>  
>> -.Pitfalls due to automatic execution of `.bashrc` and siblings
>> -[IMPORTANT]
>> -====
>> +Pitfalls due to automatic execution of `.bashrc` and siblings
>> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> +
>>  In case you have a custom `.bashrc`, or similar files that get executed on
> 
> Would it be too radical to suggest that PVE as an appliance could afford to overwrite .bashrc upon every boot for the root account and document that instead? The other alternative is to use different user for PVE tasks, but why have/allow custom .bashrc on a root to begin with?
> 
>

Yes, that is too radical and unexpected. Users will not be happy if
their .bashrc is automatically overwritten. It's perfectly legitimate to
log in as root for an admin and use bash, so forcing something upon
people there is not nice.

(Sorry, CC for the mailing list got lost, so re-sending)