> I expect that our target audience is perfectly capable of editing these files
> when we give hints (maybe in the manual). We should not make the
> configuration matrix that needs to be supported bigger than necessary.
Apparently it isn't as shown in #2344.
> I also don't buy that all other editors just work.
I'm not aware of any editor on macOS where you would have to configure
something specially outside the editor (not that I used THAT many editors
though).
> I am also highly worried that we read .bashrc ("by design") which is meant
> for interactive sessions, when the proper place works already (~/.profile is
> already consulted as of today).
OK, .bashrc won't be read on linux because calling `/bin/bash -c <some
command>` won't make it interactive. I wasn't thinking about the linux case
much but there it won't really make much difference which shell is used because
no config file is read in that case (unlike macOS where the shell should be
login to match the system behavior so e.g. .bash_profile is read). Even
.profile won't be read in this case in linux. You'd have to specify e.g.
BASH_ENV to read some external config file.
So this patch is actually much more macOS-specific than I originally thought.
We shouldn't simulate the broken macOS login shell behavior on linux.
> Call me arrogant, but I'm considering the limited man power we have, and I
> don't want to open a can of worms like this when it's not needed at all.
Sorry if it made the impression I was calling you arrogant, what I meant was
the attitude that Geany is doing it right and the rest of the world should
modify itself to match its behavior.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/2363#issuecomment-551234026
