Where are aliases defined?

[ziphyre]

Hello,

Upon a fresh install of Fedora 11 (and as a Fedora n00b), I noticed there are several aliases defined for me.

$ alias
alias l.='ls -d .* --color=auto'
alias ll='ls -l --color=auto'
alias ls='ls --color=auto'
alias vi='vim'
alias which='alias | /usr/bin/which --tty-only --read-alias --show-dot --show-tilde'

Out of curiosity, I checked out the usual files to see what else is set, etc.. But none of the
~/.bashrc
~/.bashrc_profile
/etc/bashrc or
/etc/profile

files had these aliases. So where are they?

Thanks

[forkbomb]

OK. Big time edit. Looked into it further.

~/.bashrc conditionally loads /etc/bashrc

# Source global definitions
if [ -f /etc/bashrc ]; then
	. /etc/bashrc
fi

Then, /etc/bashrc conditionally loads all the scripts in /etc/profile.d/.

	for i in /etc/profile.d/*.sh; do
		if [ -r "$i" ]; then
			. $i

For example, take a look at /etc/profile.d/which-2.sh:

alias which='alias | /usr/bin/which --tty-only --read-alias --show-dot --show-tilde'

Finally, re-adding what I had written before the first edits:
When I want to define aliases for my use, I don't usually touch any of these except /etc/profile and ~/.bashrc. If I want an alias available to all users, I stick it in /etc/profile. For aliases I want for just one user, I use ~/.bashrc.

[ziphyre]

Thank you for your response tjvanwyk.
But that wasn't what I exactly asked.
When I give the alias command, it lists all the aliases defined on my system.
Since none of these .bashrc or profile files have them, my question is where are they defined?

Thanks ayway...

[forkbomb]

Thank you for your response tjvanwyk.
But that wasn't what I exactly asked.
When I give the alias command, it lists all the aliases defined on my system.
Since none of these .bashrc or profile files have them, my question is where are they defined?

Thanks ayway...

Hi ziphyre. Sorry. I'm a moron today. I assumed that they were in /etc/profile without reading it in-depth.

Edited my previous response.

[ziphyre]

Ok, thank you.

I assume it will take some time to adjust to red-hat way...

[forkbomb]

Eh... don't ask my why the bash script structure needs to be that complicated. (Also, I did the checking on my CentOS box but as far as I know Fedora and CentOS load bash the same.)

[PabloTwo]

Most of the examples you show are defined in /etc/profile.d/colors.sh

~/> cat /etc/profile.d/colorls.sh | grep alias
  alias ll='ls -l' 2>/dev/null
  alias l.='ls -d .*' 2>/dev/null
alias ll='ls -l --color=auto' 2>/dev/null
alias l.='ls -d .* --color=auto' 2>/dev/null
alias ls='ls --color=auto' 2>/dev/null

[sidebrnz]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've always hated the color in ls, especially as it's almost impossible to find out what color means what. At first, I'd hunt down the definition and comment it out, but that only worked until the next version. Now, having /home on its own partition, I found the perfect way to nuke it once and for all by adding this line to ~/.bashrc, under the user defined aliases:

alias ls=ls

This overrides the default, bringing things back to the way I want them. (I also did this, of course, to /root/.bashrc.) I've never understood why the Fedora devs think everybody likes color ls, but at least it's not at all hard to override.

[forkbomb]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've always hated the color in ls, especially as it's almost impossible to find out what color means what. At first, I'd hunt down the definition and comment it out, but that only worked until the next version. Now, having /home on its own partition, I found the perfect way to nuke it once and for all by adding this line to ~/.bashrc, under the user defined aliases:

alias ls=ls

This overrides the default, bringing things back to the way I want them. (I also did this, of course, to /root/.bashrc.) I've never understood why the Fedora devs think everybody likes color ls, but at least it's not at all hard to override.

I like the idea, but I'm colorblind. I usually use a black background terminal with white/light grey text. But the directories appearing in flat blue make their names essentilaly unreadable to me (maybe to others too?). Wonder if there's a way to change it.

EDIT: Spoke too soon again. Answered my own question:
http://aplawrence.com/Bofcusm/345.html

e.g. dircolors -p will display what the colors are mapped too.

[PabloTwo]

....But the directories appearing in flat blue make their names essentilaly unreadable to me (maybe to others too?). Wonder if there's a way to change it.

There sure is. You can customize the terminal colors to your hearts content. Start out by putting a copy of /etc/DIR_COLORS in your home directory as a hidden file.

cp /etc/DIR_COLORS ~/.dir_colors

It doesn't matter if you use upper or lower case for the file name. The .dir_colors file will take precedence for that user. Now have a look at what controls the color of directories. To do that:

dircolors -p

will print out all the available options you can put into that ~/.dir_colors file. For setting the color scheme for a directory, the code is, tah dah, DIR. Just edit the DIR line with the color scheme you want. The default is

DIR 01;34 # directory

bold blue text

Edit: I guess I failed to notice your edit at the bottom

[sidebrnz]

And where, pray tell, is there a listing of what numbers correspond to what color? Without that, the listing of colors is useless, unless you're already a graphic artist, which I'm not.

[PabloTwo]

If you look at the /etc/DIR-COLORS file, there are comment lines that show you the codes. Ditto for the output of the 'dircolors -p' command.

[scottro]

Yeah, it's around, but it's not like BSD, where you can type man colors and get some answers.

I remember wanting to change them, and having to dig around for a bit.

To unalias for one terminal session

\ls will remove the alias.

You can put unalias ls in .bash_profile as well, I think.

[sidebrnz]

Actually, /etc/DIR_COLORS (note the typo correction) tells you what *numbers* represent what file type, but now what *color* the numbers translate to, and without that, it's useless to me.

[scottro]

I do remember figuring it out, but I think I already had some experience with ANSI colors.

Unfortunately, it's one of those things where there isn't one man page that explains it clearly, at least clearly to the non-expert. There might have been a man page that was related--but I fear I don't remember it now, and I'm pretty sure it didn't show up when I did apropos colors.


Actually, in DIR_COLORS, it does give some hints--that 31 is bright red, 32 bright green and the like. The easiest thing, and I think this is what I did, was do a google for something like ansi colors linux ls or something similar, and I found some clear instructions fairly quickly.