> >> I append my personal prompt setting scheme, in hopes this inspires
> >> someone else (any improvements greatly appreciated)
> Nicolás> Uhh..! You must have lots of free time!
>
> Not really. The first modified date on these is March 23
> 1988. Over a decade, you can get to have fairly
> I append my personal prompt setting scheme, in hopes this
> inspires someone else (any improvements greatly appreciated)
Uhh..! You must have lots of free time!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
>>"Nicolás" == Nicolás Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I append my personal prompt setting scheme, in hopes this inspires
>> someone else (any improvements greatly appreciated)
Nicolás> Uhh..! You must have lots of free time!
Not really. The first modified date on these is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raul Miller) wrote on 09.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> (2) /etc/skel/ already has a .bashrc and a .bash_profile.
It has? Isn't that against policy? I thought it said somewhere that Debian
must not put any files into /etc/skel/.
MfG Kai
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Thu, Apr 09, 1998 at 03:56:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I think the right thing to do is to leave the default prompts
> alone, and teach people how to set up prompts. There is no way you
> can cater to all tastes and all shells, people invariably change
> them, and anyway, w
Hi,
>>"Riku" == Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Riku> Ofcourse the right thing to do is a /etc/profile.d
Riku> directory.
I think the right thing to do is to leave the default prompts
alone, and teach people how to set up prompts. There is no way you
can cater to all tastes and
Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Yes, but remeber that changes in /etc/skel affect only users that
> > > are added in the system _after_ the change. Exeisting users will
> > > still have old files. I still wonder, what it helps to put global
> > > configuration in user-specific files.
On Thu, Apr 09, 1998 at 11:42:30AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes, but remeber that changes in /etc/skel affect only users that
> > are added in the system _after_ the change. Exeisting users will
> > still have old files. I still wonder, what it helps to
Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, but remeber that changes in /etc/skel affect only users that
> are added in the system _after_ the change. Exeisting users will
> still have old files. I still wonder, what it helps to put global
> configuration in user-specific files.
Then you're sayi
On Thu, Apr 09, 1998 at 08:36:33AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The policy is to keep /etc/skel minimal, to avoid unecessary bloat of
> > /home structure... keep in mind that many ISP's have thousands of users.
> (3) Administrators, even administrators w
On Thu, Apr 09, 1998 at 07:30:23PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I wrote:
> > make it to FAQ, but i can't possibly understand what damage is done if the
> > default prompt is changed to PS1="\w\$ " .
> Like that it won't work for anyone who uses a Bourne shell other th
Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The policy is to keep /etc/skel minimal, to avoid unecessary bloat of
> /home structure... keep in mind that many ISP's have thousands of users.
(1) If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right.
(2) /etc/skel/ already has a .bashrc and a .bash_profile.
(3)
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> make it to FAQ, but i can't possibly understand what damage is done if the
> default prompt is changed to PS1="\w\$ " .
Like that it won't work for anyone who uses a Bourne shell other than bash?
--
Debian GNU/Linux 1.3 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/
On Wed, Apr 08, 1998 at 11:06:44AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The point is new users.
> Then we should be talking about /etc/skel/, rather than /etc/profile
The policy is to keep /etc/skel minimal, to avoid unecessary bloat of
/home structure... keep
On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote:
> Well, this is what I use it for myself. I use PS1='\h:\w\$ ' for an
> ordinary user and PS1='[EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w\$ ' for root. Rationale: I'm root
> only
> in my machine (as most Debian users, I think) and therefore when I'm
> "sanvila" I am not
> However, I'm willing to set default root's prompt in base-files to
> '\h:\w\$ ' if enough people prefer it to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w\$ '.
>
> What do others think about this?
PS1='\h:\w\$ '
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL P
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
>>
>> Then we should be talking about /etc/skel/, rather than /etc/profile
> Well, if we talk about /etc/skel, then we could ask:
> Is there any other shell which reads .bash_profile?
No, only bash does.
--
Debi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The point is new users.
>
> Then we should be talking about /etc/skel/, rather than /etc/profile
Well, if we talk about /etc/skel, then we could ask:
Is there any other shell
Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point is new users.
Then we should be talking about /etc/skel/, rather than /etc/profile
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Apr 07, 1998 at 08:39:40PM -0700, Guy Maor wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory S. Stark) writes:
> > Am I the only one who thinks the only correct prompts would be '$ ' and '#
> > '?
> > Barring that I suggest leaving the defaults, 'bash$' et. al.
> You're not the only one. I also pref
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory S. Stark) writes:
> Am I the only one who thinks the only correct prompts would be '$ ' and '# '?
>
> Barring that I suggest leaving the defaults, 'bash$' et. al.
You're not the only one. I also prefer to leave the defaults.
Any prompt in /etc/profile would be overri
>However, I'm willing to set default root's prompt in base-files to
>'\h:\w\$ ' if enough people prefer it to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w\$ '.
I would prefer '\h:\w\$ '
- Jim Van Zandt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou
On Tue, Apr 07, 1998 at 07:18:33AM -0400, Gregory S. Stark wrote:
> > Anyway, I remember a Slackware trick to set the default prompt for many
> > different shells. Could not we do the same?
>
> Am I the only one who thinks the only correct prompts would be '$ ' and '#
> '?
I hope so. I know pro
On Tue 07 Apr 1998, Anand Kumria wrote:
> is what you are thinking about? Personnally I'd prefer a default prompt of
> nothing and allow the sysadmin doing the installation to setup reasonable
> defaults.
I'd suggest putting in a couple of different prompts, and leaving them
all commented out. Th
24 matches
Mail list logo
