From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Fri Jan 25 18:27:04 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F7D414BD7A1 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 18:27:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bapt@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADAA48FD81 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 18:27:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bapt@FreeBSD.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 718F914BD7A0; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 18:27:03 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E77314BD79F for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 18:27:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bapt@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3FD78FD7D; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 18:27:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bapt@FreeBSD.org) Received: from ivaldir.etoilebsd.net (etoilebsd.net [178.32.217.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: bapt) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B76CF9C0A; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 18:27:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bapt@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [192.168.0.17] (207.141.6.93.rev.sfr.net [93.6.141.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ivaldir.etoilebsd.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 734D1B47C4; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 19:27:01 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 19:26:58 +0100 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <20190125165751.kpcjjncmf7j7maxd@ivaldir.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: Importing mksh in base To: Adam CC: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" From: Baptiste Daroussin Message-ID: <3C023956-1B69-440E-844B-E09D0C7D9EBE@FreeBSD.org> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: F3FD78FD7D X-Spamd-Bar: ------ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.98 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.98)[-0.984,0] X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 18:27:04 -0000 Le 25 janvier 2019 18:41:51 GMT+01:00, Adam a = =C3=A9crit : >On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:58 AM Baptiste Daroussin >wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> I would like to import mksh in base, https://www=2Emirbsd=2Eorg/mksh=2E= htm >> And make it the default root shell (not necessary in one step) >> >> Why: >> 1/ it is tiny 400k (in the packaged version) all other shells fitting >the >> expectation are bigger >> 2/ it's default frontend in interactive mode is very close to what >most >> people >> are used to with bash and shells as default root shell on other BSD >and >> most >> linuxes >> 3/ from my narrow window csh as a default root shell is one of the >major >> complaint (usually the first thing a user get faced to) from new >comers and >> also for some long timers who are reinstalling a machine and have not >yet >> installed/configured a bourne compatible shell >> >> What this proposal is _NOT_ about: >> 1/ the removal of tcsh from base >> 2/ any kid of denial of the quality and interest or features of csh >> >> What do you think? >> Best regards, >> Bapt >> > >I do not wish to have a bash like root shell since imo its interactive >mode >isn't that great=2E I don't think conformity is a great argument for >change >in this regard=2E I don't see any other advantage to this change=2E I >could >be wrong but I also think it might be incorrect to say bash is the >default >root shell on other BSD's=2E I am not saying bash is the default but bourne like shell on openbsd for i= nstance it is a variant or ksh which mksh is a fork of, for example > >If there is some change to the root shell, I'd rather see it to be zsh >which does have a good interactive mode=2E zsh is big and evolving quickly, imho not a good candidate for base