Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 21:06:57 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Shells Message-ID: <200004160306.VAA30436@harmony.village.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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200004160306.VAA30436>