Subject: Re: CVS commit: basesrc/bin/ksh
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Joerg Klemenz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/29/2002 21:03:37
Matthias Buelow wrote:
> if you are speaking about bash's idea of a startup rc-file sequence,
> then I'd say it's the single most broken thing in bash (the program
I don't use bash anymore but I remember the twisted startup sequence
well. It's as broken or worse than ksh.
> It provokes great pain and explicitly scripted workarounds to produce
> startup files etc. that work with sh/ksh and bash in all three uses
The idea to use the "standard" .profile for interactive and .bashrc
for non-interactive shells is dumb to put it very mildly. Bash needs
the same explicit checks in .profile as ksh if you want to run .bashrc
Bash developers obviously believe that you shalt not have other shells
I could make an evil joke about RMS now but I'll spare you.
> on the other. I don't know about zsh, is it also that horrible there?
zsh loads only its own .z files (lots of them!). It wont touch sh
files, unless invoked as sh or ksh, then it looks after .profile.
Also zsh has an extremly usefull /etc/zshenv file, that allows you to
set a default environment even for cron et. al.
Thats what I call "the right way" :) I don't know a lot about csh, but
I think it does *that* right, too.
We are getting a little off-topic now...
joerg klemenz <email@example.com>