Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-users - Re: [SM-Users] bash spell changes

sm-users AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Sourcemage Users List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
  • To: sm-users AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Users] bash spell changes
  • Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:03:57 -0800

Quoting Hamish Greig <hgreig AT bigpond.net.au>:
> As long as there are no negative responses, I was hoping to integrate the
> bash
> spell into the stable grimoire soon (at the end of the month).
> There was one bug from my rewrite adding the /etc/profile.d usage,
> http://bugs.sourcemage.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5292 .
> I have fixed that to my satisfaction, now the only outstanding issue is in
> fact twofold.
> a) On IRC someone was upset the spell altered the users existing
> ~/.bash_profile.
> b) a request was made to have either the ~/.bash_profile a link
> to /etc/profile or at least source /etc/profile ( ". /etc/profile" in the
> ~/.bash_profile)
>
> After much thought and research I decided not to attempt to deal with either
>
> of these.
>
> a) our system has ~/.bashrc as a symlink to ~/.bash_profile. If --nologin is
>
> specified (as many windowmanagers do when logging in users) then only
> ~/.bashrc is read (not /etc/profile or ~/.bash_profile). So in order for X
> sessions to gain the benefit of the /etc/profile.d structure it is necessary
>
> to add the iteration statement to the users ~/.bash_profile also.
> b) /etc/profile is a system-wide login file, users customisations should go
> into the ~/.bash_profile which bash reads AFTER the /etc/profile file.
> resourcing the /etc/profile file in a users ~/.bash_profile is just wrong
> and
>
> shouldn't be supported by either guru's or the bash spell.
>
> Please feel free to discuss all of this at length, and please notify me of
> any
> bugs or reasons to delay the bash spell integration into stable.
>
> Hamish

I think that it is a good idea to /not/ modify any user files (such as
~/.bash_profile), and your reasoning makes sense to me. ;) The new bash system
has been working great for me so I see no reason why it shouldn't go into
stable. Could someone who hasn't yet changed to the new system (perhaps a
stable user) try it out before we pull it in and let us know how it goes?

On a side note, I think we should have SHELL defined as the shell that is
running. I thought the shells (bash, csh, etc.) did this themselves, but it
appears not. Some programs (WineX, for one) uses the SHELL variable instead of
hardcoding /bin/bash or /bin/csh etc. in.

-sandalle

--
PGP Key Fingerprint: FCFF 26A1 BE21 08F4 BB91 FAED 1D7B 7D74 A8EF DD61
http://search.keyserver.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xA8EFDD61

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS/E/IT$ d-- s++:+>: a-- C++(+++) BL++++VIS>$ P+(++) L+++ E-(---) W++ N+@ o?
K? w++++>-- O M-@ V-- PS+(+++) PE(-) Y++(+) PGP++(+) t+() 5++ X(+) R+(++)
tv(--)b++(+++) DI+@ D++(+++) G>+++ e>+++ h---(++) r++ y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric AT sandall.us | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | SysAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @ WSU
http://counter.li.org/ #196285 | http://www.shock.wsu.edu/

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page