Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.

Bug 3376

Summary: set -o vi breaks bash when it occurs in .bash_profile
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: alanr
Component: bashAssignee: David Lawrence <dkl>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 6.0   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 1999-06-10 14:51:12 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description alanr 1999-06-09 22:47:38 UTC
When you put "set -o vi" in a .bash_profile in Red Hat 6.0,
vi mode doesn't work at all.  When you type it in manually,
it works fine.  This seems like a bug in readline, not a
choice of features as Cristian Grafton has suggested.  When
one adds "set -o vi" to a .bashrc, then vi edit mode never
works correctly afterwards.  When you type it in manually,
you get great results.  Once bash processes the "set -o vi"
in a .bashrc, no amount changing edit modes manually will
make vi edit mode work correctly [emacs edit mode seems

It makes the system MUCH more unfriendly to vi users than
the old version was to emacs users.  Yeah, home and end
work, but now nothing else does - at least not for vi users.

The workaround is given by David A. DeGraaf on the

I found that the new line in /etc/profile is culpable:
When I commented this out bash worked again as it should.  I
have no idea why this line is there or what function is lost
by removing it.  It's just one of those little mysteries...

Comment 1 Jay Turner 1999-06-10 14:51:59 UTC
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 2738 ***