Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!mordor!joyce!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!ulysses!ggs
From: ggs@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Griff Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Login shell?
Summary: what about windowing terminals?
Message-ID: <10791@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: 1 Nov 88 00:30:30 GMT
References: <3ed799bc.103e8@hi-csc.UUCP> <13851@mimsy.UUCP> <511@imec.UUCP> <25721@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 27

In article <25721@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) writes:
> In article <314@uplog.se> thomas@uplog.UUCP (Thomas Hameenaho) writes:
| |One way of deciding wether or not the current shell is the login shell
| |is the fact that the name of the login shell is prependended with a '-'.
| ...
> That's not really a good indicator.   Instead what I'd do is build the
> process tree (you can use the output from ps or, better, sps if you
> can't build it from the actual process table).  Find the first entry in
> the tree for the terminal you want.  This will work on any unix
> system, while the naming convention may not.
| ...
> jim frost
> madd@bu-it.bu.edu

Still not quite right.  I usually use an AT&T 630 terminal on a 4.3BSD
system.  The login shell for the terminal is not the same as the shell
for the current window, and each window has a separate pty connected to
it.  The kludge I use also involves reading the output of ps (ugh): I
scan back through the process tree until I find a parent with a
different uid.  The child of that process is almost always the login
shell.  For my purposes, this also does the right thing for `su'.
I'd rather have someone support the concept of a session id so we could
avoid this sillyness.
-- 
Griff Smith	AT&T (Bell Laboratories), Murray Hill
Phone:		1-201-582-7736
UUCP:		{most AT&T sites}!ulysses!ggs
Internet:	ggs@ulysses.att.com