On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 10:34 +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote: > You don't need two exec lines. You don't even need one:-) > > Using "exec" _replaces" the shell running the script with the program > being called. Normally the called program is a child of the shell. For > the last program in a script it can be a tiny performance win to exec > it, since the shell is no longer needed. > > Using "exec" with a "&" is harmless but also useless. > > So I would write: > > metacity --sm-disable & > exec gnome-terminal --window --full-screen Thanks for the explanation - that makes sense. Your suggestion also worked just as you said. I'm going to make the change. > I normally try to avoid full pathnames to executables - things will just > break if the system layout is changed. Do you type full paths at your > shell prompt? Rarely I would hope:-) Scripts are no different. I originally left the full path out, but then put it back in because I thought it would make it _more_ reliable. The paths aren't ever going to change on this box, unless it comes from upstream. Your point is valid, though. Thanks, Ranbir -- Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu Linux 2.6.19-1.2895.fc6 i686 GNU/Linux 19:48:26 up 55 min, 1 user, load average: 1.47, 0.93, 0.63
