From owner-freebsd-questions Sun Apr 13 01:25:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id BAA23588 for questions-outgoing; Sun, 13 Apr 1997 01:25:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cedb.dpcsys.com (cedb.DPCSYS.com [209.25.4.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA23583 for ; Sun, 13 Apr 1997 01:25:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (dan@localhost) by cedb.dpcsys.com (8.8.5/8.8.2) with SMTP id IAA06458; Sun, 13 Apr 1997 08:25:13 GMT Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 01:25:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Dan Busarow To: David Alan Gilbert cc: questions@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: vipw doing something strange on 2.2(.1) In-Reply-To: <9704121840.AA02294@amu7.cs.man.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, David Alan Gilbert wrote: > As a strong vi user I believe that vipw should always use vi irrespective of > the setting of EDITOR; sure you can have an editpw which runs whatever > EDITOR is set to, but vipw is meant to run vi otherwise it wouldn't be > called vipw! I have to agree. I kind of flipped when this wierd screen came up the first time I ran vipw on 2.2 I know there was discussion a couple months ago but I don't remember it putting ee in as the default editor for root. For the installation maybe, but not root. Dan -- Dan Busarow 714 443 4172 DPC Systems / Beach.Net dan@dpcsys.com Dana Point, California 83 09 EF 59 E0 11 89 B4 8D 09 DB FD E1 DD 0C 82