matthias at winterdrache.de
Sun Jan 27 06:32:07 PST 2002
On 27 Jan 2002 15:00:05 +0100 Marc Heerdink <marc at koelkast.net> wrote:
> > > It's not necessary, but it looks a bit better IMO. At least it makes
> > > clear that we're dealing with a shellscript here
> > Right. The name .BASH_profile sounds so much like a Perl script.
> I meant that for example file and editors recognize it as a shellscript
> so they can output that it's a shell script (in case of "file") or use
> the proper syntax highlighting (in case of editors). It's a comfort
So it's far beyond the LFS book.
> > >. Also, it makes sure
> > > the profile is executed in bourne-compatible mode instead of just
> > > bash mode.
> > It would surprise me very much if BASH would source .BASH_profile in
> > sh mode. #!/bin/sh is just a shell comment for the shell. If you type
> > source .bash_profile manually on the command line it is definitely
> > ignored. It's only the kernel that interprets #! if you exec a file.
> > Besides, you don't _want_ .BASH_profile to be interpreted in plain sh
> > mode.
> Why wouldn't I want .bash_profile parsed in sh-mode?
Because it's a bash specific file that is only ever parsed by bash. Why
would you want it to be parsed in sh mode (which btw, won't make a
difference for 99.9% of .bash_profiles out there)
> It would be a nice check to use #!/usr/bin/perl as the first line, put a
> perl script in there and test which binary is used to parse the file.
> BTW: Please fix your wrapping at 72 characters.
Should be fixed now. I've switched to Sylpheed (Pegasus runs too slow in
Wine) and it has 3 wrapping related check buttons with no documentation.
Seems I unchecked the wrong one and didn't notice because it kept wrapping
in the editor.
Join the Army, meet interesting people, kill them.
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev