Bash_profile vs. .bashrc

Posted by akandiah on Sunday July 27, 2014 @06:54AM
from the joshstaiger.org dept.

http://www.joshstaiger.org/archives/2005/07/bash_profile_vs.html

( 6 comments | 24 points | on HN )

Re:Bash_profile vs. .bashrc by blippe on Sunday July 27, 2014 @03:31PM (#8093707)

I would recommend reading[0] instead.

[0] http://www.thegeekstuff.com/2008/10/execution-sequence-for-b...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bash_profile vs. .bashrc by blippe on Sunday July 27, 2014 @03:34PM (#8093720)

And quite honestly the man page of bash is quite readable, under invocation. http://linux.die.net/man/1/bash

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bash_profile vs. .bashrc by Canada on Sunday July 27, 2014 @04:42PM (#8093909)

In my opinion the only thing .bash_profile should do is source .bashrc, that way the environment is consistent regardless of invocation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bash_profile vs. .bashrc by RexRollman on Sunday July 27, 2014 @02:00PM (#8093427)

In the example he gives, like many I have seen on the Internet, it tests for .bashrc and if it exists, sources it. But if you didn't test it and for some reason .bashrc didn't exist, what would happen? And if nothing bad would happen, why test for it?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bash_profile vs. .bashrc by akandiah on Sunday July 27, 2014 @02:58PM (#8093620)

It's just for cleanliness. The script would error out with something along the lines of "No such file or directory".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bash_profile vs. .bashrc by RexRollman on Sunday July 27, 2014 @06:13PM (#8094161)

Thanks. I've never tried it out and was curious if anyone knew.

[ Parent | on HN ]