Darren J Moffat wrote: > William James wrote: [snip] > >> > Changing /etc/profile FORCES me to make it /bin/sh compatibleu > >> > >> Then make your bash specific changes in /etc/bash.profile, your zsh ones > >> in /etc/zprofile. That is EXACTLY why these shells have their own named > >> profile variants. > > > > So you think /etc/profile is only for /bin/sh? > > That is what it was originally defined to be for, that fact that some > other later introduced shells also use it means that while you still > have a reall Bourne shell on the system that gets used you should only > put Bourne shell syntax in there.
Depend on how you see it. IMO we have another (IMO bitter) result of the old days of the Unix wars here: Originally Unix used the "Thomson shell" and then came the "Bourne shell" as major improvment (replacing it's predecessor in "/bin/sh"). Without the Unix wars the "Korn Shell" (based on ksh spec 88) would likely be the successor (at least some platforms did replace the bourne shell with ksh) and later the "new korn shell" (based on ksh spec 93) would have followed as "/bin/sh" in Unix. IMO all of these shells have the "right" to use /etc/profile because from the historical viewpoint they've been designed for the same job and location... ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;) _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
