From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Fri Jan 25 21:03:48 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 AEBB814C327D; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 21:03:48 +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 509B172C57; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 21:03:48 +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 02FCEAD85; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 21:03:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bapt@FreeBSD.org) Received: by ivaldir.etoilebsd.net (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 03534B48B0; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 22:03:47 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 22:03:46 +0100 From: Baptiste Daroussin To: Cy Schubert Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Importing mksh in base Message-ID: <20190125210346.xzvrvuvr4rj3guov@ivaldir.net> References: <20190125165751.kpcjjncmf7j7maxd@ivaldir.net> <66278F75-5162-46A5-BF2A-DC4C3F0F35BD@cschubert.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="l7d7rf235ll3lmav" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <66278F75-5162-46A5-BF2A-DC4C3F0F35BD@cschubert.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 509B172C57 X-Spamd-Bar: ------ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.97 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.97)[-0.968,0] 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 21:03:48 -0000 --l7d7rf235ll3lmav Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:24:26AM -0800, Cy Schubert wrote: > First time I've tried replying inline on this newer phone. Bear with me a= s this reply may not look like I intend it to. >=20 > On January 25, 2019 11:07:55 AM PST, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > > > >Le 25 janvier 2019 18:12:58 GMT+01:00, Cy Schubert > > a =E9crit : > >>On January 25, 2019 8:57:51 AM PST, Baptiste Daroussin > >> wrote: > >>>Hi everyone, > >>> > >>>I would like to import mksh in base, https://www.mirbsd.org/mksh.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 > >> > >>Why not ksh93 instead? It is the original and authoritative Korn > >shell. > >>EPL is compatible with the BSD license. Personally, I've been toying > >>with the idea of importing ksh93 for a while now. > >> > > > >The reason I chose mksh is because it is heavily maintained and from > >the testing I have done it was the "nicer" interface > > >=20 > Ksh93 is also heavily maintained. Look at their github activity. My ksh9= 3-devel port has been tracking updates (I consider important). I gave a chance to ksh93-devel, my first impression are the following, as an interactive shell, it looks nicer than I remembered (still prefer mksh thou= gh) the completion looks "unexpected" but interesting I bet that can probably be tuned (having a numbered list with fullpath of application I can do complet= ion on is not what I did expect) In emacs mode, the history search does not look great, (not it does not look great as well in mksh, but less worse :)) In vi mode both seem to behave the same Manpages in both sides looks pretty complete mksh only depends on libc while ksh93 depends on libc, libexecinfo and libm on amd64: ksh93 is 1.2M mksh is 331k Overall I still think mksh is a better choice there Best regards, Bapt --l7d7rf235ll3lmav Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEgOTj3suS2urGXVU3Y4mL3PG3PloFAlxLebAACgkQY4mL3PG3 Plq34A/9G3+rT3fDD9FX3yu1RlAhJcGhdEF8rMzFoZiGvZ8AoeVLZHlkOwLp342c BSe+X9qEYRQ/hjEWLnOmyAaJDRL7re4xqLhd8y2jC4TaWyzpVlh5RcXuR55YneMD g2dI/MgO9vqptMV7JR0+SYBCW+1CQko3ZPfa+GGJBQEe+hHsCI9gT9EvEbCKeQrr S4VsRmX4yEeVcAqbQl27O7pFC3FSGQi/Q3Cb7x541uJl9KXLQT4v5UsoeoAGDwyk 9a2+yeS4FYc3YMZNP0St3PI/mr1GCWioIUSbOjtN1sUZKJijs2EL5P/pgw1rI3ci 7JiURiSuNUI6zPdMEKhEj+1VCUKRQ5KE4p0bEHxNj/wrXNasv65bZPaYcrMc84fX mTxTAlz+PJc0xxCtkmKk8MPAqHgrY6q5QYycsjl6vGi+tt70dDuWVaapPaESDKc9 BCwmC365ggDJ64EPAAWeowmM59Vs5JdI861PAqyf1AyETFisXuy0rXSa6hUNk8mj xlx7vCy/PEGhasZuZAy2y3qVYm4L3JyloReOy0Gs2oKLizx5BAedO4MqcrPFgPF3 1VyeHnfJCAwaF2UDvCKi3EHZdoFWgcwmaCN1UIaXDJmZNHw1h04YAKfz8419Am+9 TOwh+T0Srqj39voYBrfrua1X4o+hvyp9auhg2pUIiRog+pKQhsI= =/miv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --l7d7rf235ll3lmav--