On Tuesday 05 December 2006 05:19, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Kai Ponte [12-05-06 08:12]: ...

...

In the instructions, it tells me to make some environment variable changes. However, it has one set for a Borne Shell and another set for a C shell.

Which do I have?

echo $SHELL

probably /bin/bash which is Borne Again Shell. I would select Borne.

Ahh, thank you. I knew I had a bash shell but had no idea if it was borne or C. I understandd - Borne Again SHell. Very nice. :) On to flightgear! -- kai www.perfectreign.com || www.4thedadz.com a turn signal is a statement, not a request -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Kai Ponte [12-05-06 08:12]: ...

...

In the instructions, it tells me to make some environment variable changes. However, it has one set for a Borne Shell and another set for a C shell.

Which do I have?

echo $SHELL

Hmmm... I would like to point out that this will (most likely) only print the default shell which is set in /etc/passwd (which should be fine in Kai's situation). If the current shell needs to be determined, it's better to use "echo $0". Example: bash$> echo "$SHELL + $shell + $0" /bin/bash + + /bin/bash bash$> ash ash$> echo "$SHELL + $shell + $0" /bin/bash + + ash ash$> ksh ksh$> echo "$SHELL + $shell + $0" /bin/bash + + ksh ksh$> tcsh tcsh$> echo "$SHELL + $shell + $0" /bin/bash + /bin/tcsh + tcsh Cheers, Th. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Tuesday 05 December 2006 14:16, Anders Johansson wrote:

On Tuesday 05 December 2006 21:15, Thomas Hertweck wrote:

...

Hmmm... I would like to point out that this will (most likely) only print the default shell which is set in /etc/passwd (which should be fine in Kai's situation). If the current shell needs to be determined, it's better to use "echo $0".

ls -l /proc/$$/exe

kai@sith:~> ls -l /proc/$$/exe lrwxrwxrwx 1 kai users 0 2006-12-05 19:18 /proc/4165/exe -> /bin/bash Very cool. No clue what all that means, but it looks important. :) -- kai www.perfectreign.com || www.4thedadz.com a turn signal is a statement, not a request -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Anders Johansson wrote:

On Tuesday 05 December 2006 21:15, Thomas Hertweck wrote:

...

Hmmm... I would like to point out that this will (most likely) only print the default shell which is set in /etc/passwd (which should be fine in Kai's situation). If the current shell needs to be determined, it's better to use "echo $0".

ls -l /proc/$$/exe

Could you please elaborate why you came up with this solution? I think this is not portable - for instance, our HP box here has no procfs, so your solution fails. An "echo $0" should always work (as far as I know). Cheers, Th. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Randall R Schulz wrote:

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 11:17, Thomas Hertweck wrote:

...

...

ls -l /proc/$$/exe Could you please elaborate why you came up with this solution? I

Anders Johansson wrote: ... think this is not portable - for instance, our HP box here has no procfs, so your solution fails. An "echo $0" should always work (as far as I know).

I thought it was rather clever.

This is a list for users of openSUSE Linux or of other Novell SuSE Linux releases. At the very least, Linux is a reasonable assumption for answers given here, and all current Linux systems have a proc file system.

Note that procfs is deprecated. It is likely to be removed one day. To make your solution future-proof you should avoid using it. -- Geir A. Myrestrand -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Anders Johansson wrote:

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 21:30, Geir A. Myrestrand wrote:

...

Note that procfs is deprecated. It is likely to be removed one day. To make your solution future-proof you should avoid using it.

procfs deprecated? What are you talking about? It's the first I've heard of it

A google shows that it is indeed deprecated - on FreeBSD. Not in linux, and I can't find any sign that it will be either

Some parts of it are deprecated, notably the device parts, which are migrated to sysfs, but i don't see any signs at all that the rest is going away

Of course I could have missed something - feel free to point me to a resource that says differently

No, I think you may be right Anders, it seems to be portions of procfs that is deprecated --not the entire procfs. I read the opposite in a thesis published on the net [1] and took it for granted, I should have verified first though, or perhaps read it again in case I read something out of context. It probably added to my belief that I knew it was already deprecated on FreeBSD. Funny thing is I think I've seen references to this somewhere else too....maybe others got this wrong too....I better check more carefully... ;-) [1] A Movement Notification Library for Mobile IPv6 Mark Borst Master of Science Thesis -- Geir A. Myrestrand -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Jan Engelhardt wrote:

procfs is such a nice thing, esp. the links /proc/$$/cwd, root, exe, etc. Solaris is a real loser in this respect (go figure out all the ps, pstat and lsof options).

I like Solaris (quickly ducks under desks while Penguins are flying by...), well, at least since version 10 6/06. You are right though, not everything is as elegant as on Linux. I like ZFS, DTrace, and their TCP/IP stack though --neat stuff. However, to be back on topic, `echo ${SHELL}` works on Solaris too...(ducks again)... ;-) -- Geir A. Myrestrand -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 12:30, Geir A. Myrestrand wrote:

Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 11:17, Thomas Hertweck wrote:

...

Anders Johansson wrote: ...

...

ls -l /proc/$$/exe

Could you please elaborate why you came up with this solution? I think this is not portable - for instance, our HP box here has no procfs, so your solution fails. An "echo $0" should always work (as far as I know).

I thought it was rather clever.

This is a list for users of openSUSE Linux or of other Novell SuSE Linux releases. At the very least, Linux is a reasonable assumption for answers given here, and all current Linux systems have a proc file system.

Note that procfs is deprecated. It is likely to be removed one day. To make your solution future-proof you should avoid using it.

"My" solution? I did not propose it, Anders Johansson did. "Deprecated" is typically nothing more than a wag of the proverbial finger. And nothing works forever.

Geir A. Myrestrand

Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 12:40:06PM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 12:30, Geir A. Myrestrand wrote:

...

Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 11:17, Thomas Hertweck wrote:

...

Anders Johansson wrote: ...

...

ls -l /proc/$$/exe

Could you please elaborate why you came up with this solution? I think this is not portable - for instance, our HP box here has no procfs, so your solution fails. An "echo $0" should always work (as far as I know).

I thought it was rather clever.

This is a list for users of openSUSE Linux or of other Novell SuSE Linux releases. At the very least, Linux is a reasonable assumption for answers given here, and all current Linux systems have a proc file system.

Note that procfs is deprecated. It is likely to be removed one day. To make your solution future-proof you should avoid using it.

"My" solution? I did not propose it, Anders Johansson did.

"Deprecated" is typically nothing more than a wag of the proverbial finger. And nothing works forever.

head -25 /etc/bash.bashrc ... Werner -- AC3 loop through sound card http://bitstreamout.sourceforge.net/ Howto http://www.vdr-portal.de/board/thread.php?threadid=1958 ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool." -- Edward Burr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 12:41, Thomas Hertweck wrote:

Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

...

I thought it was rather clever.

Depends on the situation.

...

This is a list for users of openSUSE Linux or of other Novell SuSE Linux releases. At the very least, Linux is a reasonable assumption for answers given here, and all current Linux systems have a proc file system.

What is the problem of looking beyond one's own nose?

Who said there's a problem? You're the one finding problems.

Discussions about topics like this are technical, much more interesting and relevant than at least 80% of all the other emails on this list. Your IMO short-sighted comment is causing a lot of trouble in the life of many programmers/system administrators.

If you're a programmer or a system administrator, then you need to handle your own diligence w.r.t. portability (among many other issues) and if you blindly incorporate offered solutions without understanding them, then you've got bigger problems than one non-Unix-portable technique.

I didn't complain about Anders' solution, I was just interested in assets and drawbacks of the different proposals. What's wrong with that? If you don't want to contribute something useful to this discussion or if you are not interested, just ignore this thread.

Obviously I am interested and I did contribute--certainly more than you did. I explained how the technique worked when Kai remarked "No clue what all that means..."

Thank you.

Cheers, Th.

Ah, the hypocritical "Cheers" salutation with an added snide "thank you." A bonus! Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 20:53, Randall R Schulz wrote:

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 12:41, Thomas Hertweck wrote:

...

Cheers, Th.

Ah, the hypocritical "Cheers" salutation with an added snide "thank you." A bonus!

Randall Schulz

I think they're his initials - ok, so the 'h' isn't capitalised but I took 'Th' to be 'Thomas Hertweck'. Is there something going around on the list mid week? Seems very 'snippy'. Cheers Pete -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Am Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2006 01:44 schrieb Randall R Schulz:

Go back and look. He wrote out "Thank you." at the end of the last paragraph.

it must be a sad life with nothing better to do than nitpicking about mailing list posts. -- gpg key fingerprint: 5F64 4C92 9B77 DE37 D184 C5F9 B013 44E7 27BD 763C -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 20:17, Thomas Hertweck wrote:

Anders Johansson wrote:

...

On Tuesday 05 December 2006 21:15, Thomas Hertweck wrote:

...

Hmmm... I would like to point out that this will (most likely) only print the default shell which is set in /etc/passwd (which should be fine in Kai's situation). If the current shell needs to be determined, it's better to use "echo $0".

ls -l /proc/$$/exe

Could you please elaborate why you came up with this solution?

I wasn't aware that I had to justify my solutions

An "echo $0" should always work (as far as I know).

It doesn't work from within a shell script, since parameter 1 then is set to the name of the shell script -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 21:31, Thomas Hertweck wrote:

Anders Johansson wrote:

...

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 20:17, Thomas Hertweck wrote:

...

[...] Could you please elaborate why you came up with this solution?

I wasn't aware that I had to justify my solutions

Why are you so disrespectful? Is there a problem when I am interested in learning more about a particular solution?

Asking me why (warum) I came up with it didn't sound like you wanted to know more. It sounded more like "this is useless, why did you say it?" If there was a language mishap, then I apologize for my snappyness -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 20:44, Anders Johansson wrote:

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 21:31, Thomas Hertweck wrote:

...

Anders Johansson wrote:

...

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 20:17, Thomas Hertweck wrote:

...

[...] Could you please elaborate why you came up with this solution?

I wasn't aware that I had to justify my solutions

Why are you so disrespectful? Is there a problem when I am interested in learning more about a particular solution?

Asking me why (warum) I came up with it didn't sound like you wanted to know more. It sounded more like "this is useless, why did you say it?"

If there was a language mishap, then I apologize for my snappyness

I was going to ask about it, Anders. The '$$', is that a shortcut to the current process name? I couldn't (immediately) find a reference to it, hence the lazy question. Thanks Pete -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 20:44, Anders Johansson wrote:

The '$$', is that a shortcut to the current process name?

PID. Note that it may also stand as an abbreviation for "more money", and $$$ for "lots of money". scnr. -`J' -- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Dec 6 2006 19:17, Thomas Hertweck wrote:

Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:17:03 +0000 From: Thomas Hertweck To: opensuse@opensuse.org Subject: Re: [opensuse] Which Shell do I Have?

Anders Johansson wrote:

...

On Tuesday 05 December 2006 21:15, Thomas Hertweck wrote:

...

Hmmm... I would like to point out that this will (most likely) only print the default shell which is set in /etc/passwd (which should be fine in Kai's situation). If the current shell needs to be determined, it's better to use "echo $0".

ls -l /proc/$$/exe

Could you please elaborate why you came up with this solution? I think this is not portable - for instance, our HP box here has no procfs, so your solution fails. An "echo $0" should always work (as far as I know).

You forgot this case: execl("/bin/bash", "foobar", NULL); -`J' -- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org