Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:10701 comp.unix.sysv386:1645
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,comp.unix.sysv386
Path: utzoo!telly!eci386!woods
From: woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods)
Subject: Re: Virtual Terminals
Message-ID: <1990Oct29.163846.4299@eci386.uucp>
Summary: login vs. vt environments
Reply-To: woods@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods)
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc.
References: <1990Oct29.000407.13391@mccc.uucp>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 16:38:46 GMT

In article <1990Oct29.000407.13391@mccc.uucp> pjh@mccc.uucp (Pete Holsberg) writes:
> AT&T SV/386 R3.2.2
>[....]
> However, when I invoke a new virtual terminal -- either with the hot key
> or via 'newvt' -- the shell in the new VT does not execute /etc/profile
> and it does not execute $HOME/.profile!  It *does* execute /etc/env and
> $HOME/.env!
>[....]

I'm not sure how it really works, but I would assume the new shell is
a child of newvt, thus inherits your current environment.  If ksh is
executing $ENV, then you should have an identical working environment,
as well as identical environment variables.

This is how I would want it to work too, thus a newvt would be the
same as a sub-shell.  I wouldn't want a sub-shell to re-execute
/etc/profile, nor $HOME/.profile, since most of that stuff I want done
only once per login session.  (Things like starting reminder daemons.)

If because of the way it works the new shell on the new vt isn't a
child of the current (or invoking) shell, I'd consider that a serious
bug.  (And to my memory of actually using ksh on AT&T SysVr3.2.2/386,
this bug doesn't exist, but that was a while ago....)

Anyway, why use VT's when you can use X?  :-)

Personally I prefer layers terminals (i.e. 5620's or [6,7]30's).
-- 
						Greg A. Woods

woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP
+1-416-443-1734 [h]  +1-416-595-5425 [w]    VE3-TCP	Toronto, Ontario CANADA