Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 13:55:23 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Jeff Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Updating history file under BASH
In-Reply-To: <199807061733.MAA24721@kendall.>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980707135503.1727E-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Jeff Williams wrote:

> Thank you for responding.  Yes, I am familiar with those options to the
> history command, but I never really ``login'' or ``logout'' of bash
> when I am using it, so it wouldn't help to issue the history command in
> the bash_logout file.

Invoke Bash with "bash -login", and it will behave as a login shell.
Doesn't this solve your problem?

> I have read what the bash manual has to say about the differences
> between login and interactive shells, and I have run bash both ways on
> my system, but I don't see the advantages of one mode over the other (I
> generally use interactive mode, but not for any compelling reason).  I
> once thought/hoped that a login shell would be `permanent', i.e.,
> ignore the `exit' command, but bash as login shell will `exit' to DOS
> same as an interactive shell (on my machine, anyway).  I've also loaded
> bash as the only shell, but then I miss the ability to run DOS batch
> files, so I generally run bash on top of COMMAND.COM.

If -login solves your problem with writing the history, then you
indeed don't have too many reasons to use it in login mode.  Bash
*can* be loaded as the permanent shell, but IMHO it's too much hassle,
and I don't recommend it.