Linux - Software This forum is for Software issues.
Having a problem installing a new program? Want to know which application is best for the job? Post your question in this forum. |
| Notices |
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Are you new to LinuxQuestions.org? Visit the following links:
Site Howto |
Site FAQ |
Sitemap |
Register Now
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
 |
GNU/Linux Basic Guide
This 255-page guide will provide you with the keys to understand the philosophy of free software, teach you how to use and handle it, and give you the tools required to move easily in the world of GNU/Linux. Many users and administrators will be taking their first steps with this GNU/Linux Basic guide and it will show you how to approach and solve the problems you encounter.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free. |
|
 |
01-17-2010, 02:01 AM
|
#1
|
|
Member
Registered: Feb 2008
Posts: 351
Rep:
|
gnome: Fedora/CentOS source .bash_profile but Ubuntu/Debian source .bashrc
I understand since "Run command as a login shell" is usually
UNTICKED under Gnome Terminal -> Menu Bar -> Edit -> Profiles -> Edit -> "Title and Command" whenever I open a terminal, I just don't understand
why Fedora/CentOS source the .bash_profile (which in turns source .bashrc
conveniently with
Quote:
if [ -f ~/.bashrc ]; then
. ~/.bashrc
fi
|
)
What makes Fedora/CentOS decides to source .bash_profile (i.e., it knows
that it is login screen) ??
|
|
|
|
01-17-2010, 03:14 AM
|
#2
|
|
Senior Member
Registered: Jan 2009
Location: Japan
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 3,565
|
Have you tried reading and comparing the differences between the Debian and Redhat bash man pages?
Evo2.
|
|
|
|
01-17-2010, 05:19 AM
|
#3
|
|
Member
Registered: Feb 2008
Posts: 351
Original Poster
Rep:
|
Huh? I don't believe they are different since there is only one bash man pages. I think different distros tweak the customization differently.
|
|
|
|
01-17-2010, 09:50 AM
|
#4
|
|
Member
Registered: Feb 2008
Posts: 351
Original Poster
Rep:
|
I have this theory:
Fedora and Ubuntu cannot agree on the login shell definition.
When a user logins to the gnome session, Fedora considers that as a login shell and it sources the .bash_profile once (and .bashrc too since .bash_profile has a line to source .bashrc). However, Ubuntu/Debian
does not consider that as a login shell since the default setting when invoking a gnome terminal is not to run it as a login shell according
to the unticked status of "Run command as a login shell", so it ignores
.bash_profile but sources .bashrc instead. Strictly speaking, when a user login, one would consider that as a login shell
according to the logic of Fedora, but this `violates' the default setting
of unticked status of "Run command as a login shell".
If my theory is right, then it just shows that they are too much entropy in the linux world...
Personally, I find this PATH=$PATH:blahblah is so confusing. I would like
to put it in .bash_profile since we want to source PATH=$PATH:something once or else $PATH gets longer and longer (such as the Xcrysden configure sticks add the software to .bashrc and this is rather unwieldy, the
best place to put PATH=$PATH should be in .bash_profile.
|
|
|
|
01-17-2010, 05:21 PM
|
#5
|
|
Senior Member
Registered: Jan 2009
Location: Japan
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 3,565
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by centguy
Huh? I don't believe they are different since there is only one bash man pages.
|
So you generally just "believe" things and don't actually investigate?
The bash man page in Debian is quite explicit about the shell invocation.
Quote:
|
I think different distros tweak the customization differently.
|
Which in a good distro will be documented.
Evo2.
|
|
|
|
01-17-2010, 07:50 PM
|
#6
|
|
Member
Registered: Feb 2008
Posts: 351
Original Poster
Rep:
|
believe or not, "man bash" does not belong to any distro. Anyway, you have to base on common sense to decide certain things.
|
|
|
|
01-17-2010, 08:35 PM
|
#7
|
|
Senior Member
Registered: Jan 2009
Location: Japan
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 3,565
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by centguy
believe or not, "man bash" does not belong to any distro. Anyway, you have to base on common sense to decide certain things.
|
Believe it or not, distros do sometime patch packages and documentation. But if you can't be bothered trying to read documentation I really can't be bothered with you.
*plonk*
Evo2.
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:01 PM.
|
|
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
|
Latest Threads
LQ News
|
|