Hello, On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 06:18:17AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 11/04/2018 07:34 AM, Andy Smith wrote: > >I don't think the login shell setting has anything to do with it. > > You obviously could not be bothered trying it!
I don't run any of the same software as you so it would be a lot of work to try this out. I'm only trying to help you file the right bug against the right software, but if that is not welcome just say so and I am happy to leave you to it. If I understand correctly: - You have a launcher file that references an executable. In normal cases calling the launcher from your desktop environment (I don't know if this is by menu or button or something else) causes the binary to run. I'm assuming it is a command line binary and you've told it to run in a terminal, so, the expected result is a terminal window with this program running in it. - You accidentally overwrote the binary with the textual output of "man" resulting in a file which was still marked executable but was not a valid Linux binary or script. - Now when you call the launcher there is no visual feedback to indicate that there was a problem. - You told the launcher to run a terminal with a login shell and now it does do something to indicate there was a failure of the binary. - You therefore conclude that every launcher which uses a terminal should default to using a login shell and wish to file a bug to that effect. I'm expressing disbelief that the terminal using a login shell is what is making the difference, but you weren't clear about what the difference actually is. So, assuming I understand the situation (as above), what is the actual difference in behaviour when you run this corrupt binary from a launcher that is set to terminal+login as opposed to just terminal? Cheers, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting "I remember the first time I made love. Perhaps it was not love exactly but I made it and it still works." — The League Against Tedium
