In Xubuntu Saucy 64-bit I had the same problem, somehow during
installation .bash_history was owned by root. Just had it modified by:
sudo chown . .bash_history
and
sudo chmod 755 .bash_history
and got my history back
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bu
On 08/03/2012 10:51 AM, James M. Leddy wrote:
> I think this has regressed again in precise. At least when I issue
> shutdown I lose all my histories.
>
Well maybe that's from "shutdown" not bash?
At least here since the change in bash was reverted history is always
saved except if log out/restar
I think this has regressed again in precise. At least when I issue
shutdown I lose all my histories.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/725327
Title:
bash 4.2 does not save history (~/.ba
** Changed in: bash (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/725327
Title:
bash 4.2 does not save history (~/.bash_history) when using close
Just for reference, here's the changelog from Ubuntu's update manager:
Changes for the versions:
4.2-0ubuntu2
4.2-0ubuntu3
Version 4.2-0ubuntu3:
* Apply upstream patches 007 - 008.
So even when I don't overlook the...you get the point. It's nice that it's
fixed though :)
--
You received
Well then this can be marked as fix released
(gotta love how gnu.org posts my email in full
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/725327
Title:
bash 4.2 does not save history (~/.bash_hi
Recent update of bash (4.2-0ubuntu3) integrates a upstream patch for
this bug.
# DP: bash-4.2 upstream patch 008
BASH PATCH REPORT
=
Bash-Release: 4.2
Patch-ID: bash42-008
Bug-Reported-by:Doug McMahon
Bu
For those who want to compare the shells > http://www.faqs.org/faqs
/unix-faq/shell/shell-differences/.
A quote:
"Why change your shell
The UNIX shell is most people's main access to the UNIX operating
system and as such any improvement to it can result in considerably
more effective us
Those are both good suggestions, at least some kind of visual indicator
(i.e., menu entry) would be good for people not aware of this change.
Thing is, if someone patches GNOME Terminal to fix this, it will still
affect xterm, Konsole, Guake, and all the other front-ends out there.
I'm still loosi
Hi all,
Pls see
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-
terminal/+bug/740346?comments=all
for a closely-related bug, now in the GUI shell (i.e. "gnome-terminal")
and my suggestion at:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-
terminal/+bug/740346/comments/5
--
You received thi
Gimmie the stick...I'd like to take a few swings at that dead horse too.
It would have been nice to get a message when I opened terminal for the
first time that explained this loss of function. I rely heavily on
.history and lost another 30 minutes tracing down this bug report.
--
You received th
And I think it is worth repeating -
If the current bash maintainer, chet ramey, feels this is the correct behavior
, then I'm not in a position to question and I've seen no one post any
'evidence' to contrary
(his comments are in post 6
--
You received this bug notification because you are
While it would be nice if someone whose 'opinion' does matter (in terms of
debian/ubuntu) commented on this, one might take the lack of in a couple of ways
There is a huge triaging/bug fixing going on and this may be of very low
importance, interest, or -
it is the way it is now. (nothing to be
I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but the point is this:
I'm a relatively experienced user who is interested in development and
release notes and so on and I ended up with this problem. Take that as
you will (laziness/unperceptive behavior on my part, or whatever), but
it still happened to me
I'm not always opposed to Change but this one is really a bug. what if
the computer just get unplugged and shutdown ? they are many options I
don't totally remember , so the history is a good help for this.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
Doug McMahon wrote > No, the release notes are available when installing
in the installer and at/after release from the ubuntu site where 'get
ubuntu' is shown.
Oh. I didn't think things like this were included in the release
notes.
Thanks for linking to your sudo bug, that's actually very help
Justin wrote > I suppose that's the same as "changelog"?
No, the release notes are available when installing in the installer and
at/after release from the ubuntu site where 'get ubuntu' is shown.
anyway there seems to be many options here available from the user side,
what the official end resul
Installed shells (/etc/shells: valid login shells): cat /etc/shells
Change login shell: chsh
Example:
Installing zsh ("a shell with lots of features"): sudo apt-get install
zsh
Valid shells: cat /etc/shells
=>
...
/bin/zsh
/usr/bin/zsh
...
Changing: chsh -s /bin/zsh
Log out & Log in
The ter
I think it could be interpreted both ways - regression or feature. I
personally think it's a regression and should be patched, but I guess
we'll just have to wait and see.
As for another shell, "zsh" is similar to bash and is available in the
repos. It has the old history behavior. I'd also rec
Thanks for the good explaination. Your Idea with the *notification* is
really nice. I know this is not the right place for discussions, but
anyway, there are two points that are important for me:
For me, personal, it is a bug. It doesn't "appear" that a function has
been removed. It HAS been remov
Doug McMahon wrote > there is in the release notes, not sure this
'qualifies'
I suppose that's the same as "changelog"? As in what you get when using
the Update Manager? That functionality is of course already present,
but I was thinking more along the lines of a mechanism that makes it
easy for
Justin wrote > but it seems there should be a mechanism in place to inform
users
there is in the release notes, not sure this 'qualifies'
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/725327
T
All points here are well taken, and I will of course get used to the new
behavior.
That doesn't change the fact that that this was a large disruption to my
every day usage. I realize I'm just complaining now, but it seems there
should be a mechanism in place to inform users of substantial under t
No single good point for me. Tell me, please, only ONE good reason to
change the behaviour we have until this, not really good, pronounced
change.
I cannot image any point.
You will get a lot of bugreports for this. And, sorry, but do you
overtake any change from upstream, without thinking about
I'm not going to speak for the ubuntu/debian maintainer(s) who have
remained silent on this , but a few add. comments
The change concerning this was made upstream, I'd certainly consider
their/his (chet ramey) knowledge of bash to be such that the change was
well justified. (nothing I could re
Until another and better solution is there, I worked this around by
installing bash 4.1 from Maverick.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/725327
Title:
bash 4.2 does not save history (~/.
I agree. It was a few days before figured out how to get it working
again. First I found this bug report, but after following the
instructions it still wouldn't work. Turns out it was a setting in my
extensively modified bashrc relating to history. Drove me nuts. Now I
still close the window w
I'm not fine with this nor do I think most people will. This is an
unexpected behaviour and many people will be confused about this.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/725327
Title:
bash
I'm actually fine with this new behavior now that I know the why and how to get
the history written to (exit command; Ctrl+d
Certainly it's not my place to mark as 'will not fix', though I think someone
in that position should either do so or comment as seen fit.
It wouldn't hurt to have noted
** Summary changed:
- bash 4.2 does not save history (~/.bash_history
+ bash 4.2 does not save history (~/.bash_history) when using close window
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/725327
T
** Changed in: bash (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/725327
Title:
bash 4.2 does not save history (~/.bash_history
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
I'm going to leave this open for those that are wondering what's changed
and how to get a ~/.bash_history created and written to
With bash 4.2 you need to use an exit command when closing a terminal,
if you do so it will then write to your history
As relayed by chet ramey -
> One thing that has
'bash 4.2-0ubuntu2' has the bug too. But it wouldn't surprise me if the
bug is in 'xfce4-terminal' (current version: 0.4.6-1ubuntu1) and not in
'bash'. I can't remember a 'bash' update passing by recently and I'm
sure 'xfce4-terminal' did update in the past days, though it's
impossible to remember
Using Natty Alpha 3 Xubuntu Terminal no longer adds items to the
bash_history and after deleting the old history the terminal does not
recreate it. The Terminal itself only remembers the last command used
whilst left open and forgets that when it is restarted.
** Tags added: iso testing
--
You r
Final on this for me -
Fresh A3 install -
open a terminal, run some commands, commands are retrievable in the open
terminal
close terminal - no ~/.bash_history is created
open a new terminal - no commands can be retrieved.
One way a bash_history can be created and a command saved ((crash
compi
If the current ~/.bash_history is removed a new one will not be created
** Tags added: regression
** Tags removed: running-unity
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/725327
Title:
bash 4.2
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/725327
Title:
bash 4.2 does not save history (~/.bash_history
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman
37 matches
Mail list logo
