At Fri, 27 Sep 2024 07:14:46 +0700, Robert Elz <k...@munnari.oz.au> wrote: Subject: Re: interactive shell detection in shrc > > Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 15:16:39 -0700 > From: "Greg A. Woods" <wo...@planix.ca> > Message-ID: <m1stwmt-0036s2C@more.local> > > | I'm very curious: why did you include "m" in that test? > > I wondered about that as well. But I suspect you have > supplied the answer. > > | I do note the following from the bosh(1) manual: > | > | ... POSIX requires that job control is auto-enabled for > | interactive shells ... > > It actually requires it to be on by default in interactive shells, > that's almost what the above says, but it could be read as not > allowing "sh +m" to start an interactive shell with job control > disabled -- which is not what posix requires. > > | But I'm pretty sure the key word there is "interactive", which will by > | definition also mean they have 'i' in $-. > > It would, but as you point out -i isn't always available there, but -m > should be,
But that was my point! "m" is not in $- either!
However it seems my own test conflates the condition of being a "login
shell" with being "interactive".
Reading POSIX Issue 7 sh(1) just now I note the following text:
If the -i option is present, or if there are no operands and the
shell's standard input and standard error are attached to a
terminal, the shell is considered to be interactive.
So there's nothing in POSIX about login(1) tacking a leading hyphen on
and using that to trigger the shell to become a login shell.
Indeed from what I can tell POSIX has nothing whatsoever to say about
"login shells" nor /etc/profile or $HOME/.profile.
I guess to be entirely POSIX compatible my test should include:
tty >/dev/null 2>&1 && tty <&1 >/dev/null 2>&1 &&
[ "$0" = "$SHELL" ] &&
_interactive=true
--
Greg A. Woods <gwo...@acm.org>
Kelowna, BC +1 250 762-7675 RoboHack <wo...@robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <wo...@planix.com> Avoncote Farms <wo...@avoncote.ca>
pgpKs5V8BaRYw.pgp
Description: OpenPGP Digital Signature
