Mike Gerdts wrote: [CC:'ing networking-discuss at opensolaris.org, AFAIK some of the SunSSH people are subscribed to that list] > > Between the days of Solaris 9 and today, the behavior of .profile > processing through ssh has changed. It used to be that users could > customize their environment through .profile and they would get the > same behavior whether they did: > > $ ssh hostname > user at hostname$ mycommand > > OR > > $ ssh hostname mycommand > > The move to Solaris 10 broke this. The apparent backport of the > Solaris 10 ssh to Solaris 9 (delivered via patches) broke this on > Solaris 9. Aside from specifying full paths to commands (or > transitioning to bash where .bashrc is processed in all cases), there > seems to be no easy solution for per-user shell customization.
Erm, AFAIK this sounds like a common misconception between the login profile files and the interactive shell environment files: /etc/profile and ~/.profile are _only_ sourced for login shells while /etc/ksh.kshrc+~/.kshrc (ksh93) and /etc/bash.bashrc+~/.bashrc are sourced for all interactive shells. Note that not all interactive shells are login shells and AFAIK not all login shells are interactive. AFAIK the question is now how "ssh" is expected to behave: Should a ssh session run a plain login shell in interactive mode or just a (non-login) interactive shell ? AFAIK the ssh should behave like the old rsh/rlogin model in this case (offtopic question: Why does SunSSH not deliver "slogin"), e.g. - Running "ssh" should run a shell as (non-login) shell - Running "slogin" should run a shell as login shell ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
