Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> In <4A036DD4.5000702@xxxxxxx>, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
>> But, why not just do it the correct way. If you have the system
>> set up correctly, there is no need to check the PATH.
>
> The correct way is for only bash login processes to read
> ~/.bash_profile, and X login processes to read some other file.
Come on nobody can be this stupid.
Login processes don't read shell scripts. Shells read (and execute)
shell scripts. So, what is the X shell?
> An X login process should never > read .bash_profile.[1] A zsh login
> process doesn't, nor does a tcsh login process. I'm down with X or
> Xsessions in general running a ~/.xprofile, but (for me) it would be
> quite a different beast.
>
> In any case, you *still* need to check the path because /etc/profile
> could add ~/bin to the PATH.
>
Well, if you are going to be sloppy setting up your system.
> You can disagree, but you are wrong based on my experience and
> reading of the relevant documentation.
Then I guess that we have established that you don't understand the
documentation. And, you don't appear to have understood the paragraph I
quoted from the Bash man page.
The problem appears to be that you do not understand the difference
between configuring the shell and configuring the session. The user
shell configuration applies only to the shell. The user session
configuration would be the same no matter which shell you were using.
However, the syntax used to configure the session will be different
depending on which shell you are using to execute it.
Therefore, the user profile script has the form: .<shell>_profile where
"<shell>" indicates which shell script syntax it is written in so that
the shell will execute the correct one. IIUC, just plain: ".profile" is
to be written in the generic Bourne shell syntax as is the global login
shell (/etc/profile) and the "Xsession" shell which all systems are
supposed to be able to execute.
To clarify about the /etc/xprofile and $HOME/.xprofile are not executed
by X but rather sourced by the "Xsession" shell which executed by the
Bourne shell (or compatibility mode) so there are not multiple versions
of these and they should, to be correct, written in Bourne shell syntax.
> You won't change my mind unless you can point me at additional
> documentation.
>
Look, if you want do do it wrong, that is up to you.
However, I do have one suggestion -- a question actually: If these files
don't serve different purposes, then why are there two different files?
I have tried to explain it to your, but you have skipped over my
explanations to try to come up with more reasons that I am wrong. I
have noticed this behavior pattern often on mailing lists. It has been
my experience that there can be no discussion with someone that exhibits
this behavior. So, I will not waste any further time with you -- I have
wasted too much already.
Alternatively, it is possible that your incorrect understanding of
things is so strong that you are not able to understand my explanations.
--
JRT
Linux (mostly) From Scratch
___________________________________________________
This message is from the kde mailing list.
Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
