From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Apr 16 3:57:28 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 DEF4E37B590 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 03:57:25 -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 MAA26483 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:57:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id MAA00440 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:57:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32AE437B56B for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:07:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by rover.village.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA45333; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 21:07:21 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id VAA30436; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 21:06:57 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200004160306.VAA30436@harmony.village.org> To: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group Subject: Re: Shells Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 15 Apr 2000 16:56:26 PDT." <200004152356.e3FNup102274@cwsys.cwsent.com> References: <200004152356.e3FNup102274@cwsys.cwsent.com> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 21:06:57 -0600 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <200004152356.e3FNup102274@cwsys.cwsent.com> Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group writes: : With commit of tcsh, I'd like to raise another question. Are there any : plans to replace sh with bash. Granted they're not 100% compatible, What does this mean. If it means that sh scripts won't run on BASH, then I'd say the odds are very low. tcsh runs all csh scripts as far as I know. No examples were held up in the last batch of shell jihads. : Another point to consider is that most people install who use a Bourne : Shell the bash port, just like Csh users install the tcsh port. I : think fewer people would be inconvenienced by the replacement of sh : with bash than by not doing so. : : Anyone care to comment? My concerns would be compatibility with the existing system and size. If it bloats the current /bin/sh to much larger than the 400k it has become, then I'd be reluctant. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message