Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/03/17/11:28:17
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 11:08:17AM -0500, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 02:56:30AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf AT redhat DOT com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:39 AM
>>>>Actually, I don't think there is any reason to have a default
>>>>/etc/profile for ash. I think it is really only useful for bash. The
>>>>current /etc/profile seems to assume that it is running under bash.
>>>>However, it really should be more ash friendly since ash reads
>>>>/etc/profile. Either that or maybe ash should read something other
>>>Well, my interest begins and ends with the file creation being moved
>>>somewhere sensible. Simply running setup should not create
>>>/etc/profile any more than installing sed.
>I'm not sure I agree. It doesn't matter what creates it, it needs
>created. Go back before DJ created the patch to setup and take a look
>at the mail list. It's a needed item, setup does it now. It's a
>living method. It needs a modification, so just modify it. I would;
>but, Robert, you've it already in your sandbox and it's such a simple
What are you not agreeing to? No one is denying that the /etc/profile
files themselves need to be created.
If you're referring to adding an alias for 'more', then we're not
talking about that. It's not the correct solution anyway. Adding an
alias in /etc/profile doesn't help tcsh users and it breaks ash usage
without the addition of extra tests. Which, coincidentally, brings us
back to the issue of what should be in /etc/profile.
- Raw text -