Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <01dd01c30f5c$351dd020$9aea86d9@ellixia>
From: "Elfyn McBratney" <elfyn-cygwin AT exposure DOT org DOT uk>
To: "cygwin" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 44 DOT 0304301653240 DOT 25128-100000 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Subject: Re: HOME
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 22:05:08 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

> On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, John Morrison wrote:
>
> > > From: Igor Pechtchanski
> > > On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, John Morrison wrote:
> > >
> > > > > From: Igor Pechtchanski
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep, you're quite right.  I was looking at my own (heavily edited)
> > > > > /etc/profile, forgetting that it wouldn't have been
> > > overwritten by newer
> > > > > versions on upgrade.
> > > >
> > > > Is there anything in your version you think would be good in
> > > > the 'default' version?  Even commented out?
> > > >
> > > > J.
> > > > "/etc/profile maintainer" ;)
> > >
> > > Good point...  Let's see:
> >
> > Thanks, I'll look these over and (prob) have a new version
> > sometime at the weekend :)
> >
> > (Somethings might be added commented out, like the .bashrc)
> >
> > But, thanks again.
> > J.
>
> John,
>
> If you plan to use the "case on the shell" bit, I just realized it might
> be a good idea to add the shells with the .exe extension as possible
> matches, e.g.,
>
> bash | -bash | */bash | bash.exe | -bash.exe | */bash.exe)
>
> Also, for the ksh case, do we need to match "pdksh"?  Is anyone likely to
> invoke that as a login shell (by that name, I mean, not as "ksh")?
> Igor

I think we're safe just to case for ksh variants, although as ksh93 may see
the light some time soon, t'would be better to case for both...

Elfyn


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/