Dan Price wrote: [snip] > My thought is that we should revamp all of the interactive shell defaults > to have consistent (across the shells) and excellent default interactive > settings, with useful prompts and default behaviors whereever possible. > And yes, we should do so judiciously, with all due deliberation. Would > you defend: > > bash-3.00$ (bash) > > or > > > (tcsh) > > as a reasonable default prompt for a shell suitable for an interactive > user? "bash-3.00$" is the kind of crapola we wind up with when we follow > the policy of "none" (bash and tcsh shown, respectively).
I agree that an unified and plugable configuration for the shells would be nice... for example (SuSE) Linux links /etc/ksh.kshrc to /etc/bash.bashrc and the adds some "if;then;fi"-statements to handle the differences between the shells (well, I would prefer to make /etc/bash.bashrc a link to /etc/ksh.kshrc ... :-) ) ... ... and Linux has /etc/profile.d/ which contains small shell script fragments sourced by the matching shells as part of the /etc/profile script. I think we should either adopt this or work together with SuSE+LSB to create something like /etc/env.d/ (which should work similar as /etc/profile.d/ but covers at least: - login shell startup files - interactive shell startup scripts - logout scripts ) ... ---- Bye, Roland P.S.: I've set the Reply-To: header to shell-discuss at opensolaris.org since this is the list where this should be discussed... -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
