On 5/29/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tuesday 30 May 2006 06:48 skrev Iain Buchanan:> I see this [ "x" != "x$BLAH" ] test all over the place, especially in> the /etc/init.d scripts. Maybe -z is not standardised or something?
> Dunno why people use it.Having searched a little fu
Tuesday 30 May 2006 16:19 skrev Neil Bothwick:
> Or even
>
> if [ -n "$PS1" ]
>
> or you'll get an error if PS1 is undefined.
That explains a LOT! ;) Didn't quite understand why the statement was true
even when the variable was not set...
--
Bo Andresen
pgpDLPBh4Hu7J.pgp
Description: PGP sig
On Tue, 30 May 2006 06:35:39 +0200, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> That of course should have been negated...
>
> if [ -n $PS1 ]
Or even
if [ -n "$PS1" ]
or you'll get an error if PS1 is undefined.
--
Neil Bothwick
If the pen is mightier than the sword, and a picture is worth a thousand
wor
Tuesday 30 May 2006 07:51 skrev Iain Buchanan:
> Ah, I was looking in /etc/init.d wondering why I couldn't find it :) I
> have bad RAM in my head. I guess sh scripts can be run by sh and bash,
> and probably other --sh variants. Not that that helps with this topic,
> I was just thinking aloud :)
On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 07:10 +0200, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> Tuesday 30 May 2006 06:48 skrev Iain Buchanan:
> > I see this [ "x" != "x$BLAH" ] test all over the place, especially in
> > the /etc/init.d scripts. Maybe -z is not standardised or something?
> > Dunno why people use it.
>
> Having s
Tuesday 30 May 2006 06:48 skrev Iain Buchanan:
> I see this [ "x" != "x$BLAH" ] test all over the place, especially in
> the /etc/init.d scripts. Maybe -z is not standardised or something?
> Dunno why people use it.
Having searched a little further I have been able to locate a few scripts that
u
Tuesday 30 May 2006 06:48 skrev Iain Buchanan:
> I see this [ "x" != "x$BLAH" ] test all over the place, especially in
> the /etc/init.d scripts. Maybe -z is not standardised or something?
> Dunno why people use it.
You do?? I don't:
$ grep \"[a-z]\" /etc/init.d/*
/etc/init.d/halt.sh:
On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 06:26 +0200, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> Also shouldn't:
>
> if [ "x" != "x$PS1" ]
>
> be equivalent to:
>
> if [ -z $PS1 ]
I see this [ "x" != "x$BLAH" ] test all over the place, especially in
the /etc/init.d scripts. Maybe -z is not standardised or something?
Dunno why
Tuesday 30 May 2006 06:26 skrev Bo Ørsted Andresen:
> if [ -z $PS1 ]
That of course should have been negated...
if [ -n $PS1 ]
--
Bo Andresen
pgpnSDqa93h5t.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Sunday 28 May 2006 18:21 skrev Kevin O'Gorman:
> if [ "x" != "x$PS1" ] ; then
> SHELL_LOGIN=1
> else
> # Probably scp; empty string is false
> SHELL_LOGIN=
> fi
>
> if [ -n "$SHELL_LOGIN" ]
[...]
IMHO it seems kind of lame to use one shell variable to create another instead
of just us
On 5/28/06, John Jolet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 28, 2006, at 11:21 AM, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:> On 5/27/06, John Jolet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> That does not work for ssh/scp sessions. I usually test $PS1 to tell
> > if it's really a shell -- the variable does not even exist for an> > sc
On May 28, 2006, at 11:21 AM, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
On 5/27/06, John Jolet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That does not work for ssh/scp sessions. I usually test $PS1 to tell
> if it's really a shell -- the variable does not even exist for an
> scp session,
> although .bashrc gets called.
can you
On 5/27/06, John Jolet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That does not work for ssh/scp sessions. I usually test $PS1 to tell> if it's really a shell -- the variable does not even exist for an> scp session,> although .bashrc gets called.can you give us an example of what your .bashrc looks like?
Well, t
That does not work for ssh/scp sessions. I usually test $PS1 to tell
if it's really a shell -- the variable does not even exist for an
scp session,
although .bashrc gets called.
can you give us an example of what your .bashrc looks like?
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
On 5/27/06, John Jolet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That was the hint I needed. It's /bin/bash, which reminded me I> just changed something> in .bashrc which outputs a message and does some other stuff which> must be> confusing scp. In fact, I just confirmed that by commenting it
> out. Now scp
That was the hint I needed. It's /bin/bash, which reminded me I
just changed something
in .bashrc which outputs a message and does some other stuff which
must be
confusing scp. In fact, I just confirmed that by commenting it
out. Now scp works too.
So: PROBLEM SOLVED.
Now I just have t
On 5/27/6, John Jolet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, I set LogLevel=DEBUG3 and reloaded sshd, but I got no more> output than usual:> May 27 09:14:55 treat sshd[11739]: Received SIGHUP; restarting.> May 27 09:14:55 treat sshd[2352]: Server listening on
0.0.0.0 port 22.> May 27 09:15:31 treat ss
Okay, I set LogLevel=DEBUG3 and reloaded sshd, but I got no more
output than usual:
May 27 09:14:55 treat sshd[11739]: Received SIGHUP; restarting.
May 27 09:14:55 treat sshd[2352]: Server listening on 0.0.0.0 port 22.
May 27 09:15:31 treat sshd[2356]: Connection from 64.166.164.53
port 32776
Ma
On 5/27/06, John Jolet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Password:> debug1: packet_send2: adding 32 (len 25 padlen 7 extra_pad 64)> debug2: input_userauth_info_req> debug2: input_userauth_info_req: num_prompts 0> debug1: packet_send2: adding 48 (len 10 padlen 6 extra_pad 64)
> debug1: ssh-userauth2 succ
Password:
debug1: packet_send2: adding 32 (len 25 padlen 7 extra_pad 64)
debug2: input_userauth_info_req
debug2: input_userauth_info_req: num_prompts 0
debug1: packet_send2: adding 48 (len 10 padlen 6 extra_pad 64)
debug1: ssh-userauth2 successful: method keyboard-interactive
debug3: clear hostkey
On 5/26/06, Kevin O'Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/25/06, John Jolet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
On May 25, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:> Somewhere along the line, ssh and ssh2 have gotten conflated,> confused or just> downright broken. I have been running ssh daemon(s) for so
On 5/25/06, John Jolet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 25, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:> Somewhere along the line, ssh and ssh2 have gotten conflated,> confused or just> downright broken. I have been running ssh daemon(s) for so long I
> don't even> remember how I set them up. They J
On May 25, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
Somewhere along the line, ssh and ssh2 have gotten conflated,
confused or just
downright broken. I have been running ssh daemon(s) for so long I
don't even
remember how I set them up. They Just Ran (TM).
For a short while, ssh connection
23 matches
Mail list logo
