From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Apr 17 2:56:52 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28E1637B85B for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 02:56:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA10907 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 11:56:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id LAA00307 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 11:56:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (storm.freebsd.org.uk [194.242.139.170]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10EE537BA50 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 01:45:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Received: from hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (hak.nat.Awfulhak.org [172.31.0.12]) by storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA93892; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:45:36 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Received: from hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (brian@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA00552; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 08:30:41 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from brian@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org) Message-Id: <200004170730.IAA00552@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Cc: Warner Losh , Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, brian@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org Subject: Re: Shells In-Reply-To: Message from "Jordan K. Hubbard" of "Sun, 16 Apr 2000 04:07:00 PDT." <27309.955883220@zippy.cdrom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <544.955956639.1@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 08:30:41 +0100 From: Brian Somers Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > sh scripts run fine on bash and I'll certainly challenge anyone to > find me a /bin/sh script which behaves differently when fed to our > 5.0-current ash shell vs bash 2.03. #! /bin/sh touch help echo hel{*,p} (and I don't think ``set +B'' is a good thing for /etc/profile....) > Since we've started this whole "commit the superset shell in favor of > advanced user friendliness" argument, one supposes that replacing > /bin/csh with tcsh and /bin/sh with bash2 with be merely orthoginal. All people need is a boot-time option. We don't need tcsh, bash, zsh or any other shell as part of the base system. > Both options have also, it must be pointed out, been already taken by > other flavors of *ix with far larger user bases than FreeBSD's and it > can probably be reasonably supposed that these arguments have already > taken place and been reasonably well-resolved or their own > switch-overs would not have happened. I see /bin/sh as bash on > probably every linux system I've ever used and linux's ability to run > arbitrary "popular shell scripts" has not, to my knowledge, ever been > brought into serious question. The flip-side is the Solaris approach. It's got a sh that can't even do test -L properly I think there's a balance to be drawn here, and going hell-for-leather in one direction is as evil as going in the other. Having a ``base'' version of {c,}sh (oops!) that evolves with standards is a good thing. IMHO adding packages from sysinstall is the way to go. > - Jordan -- Brian Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message