Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 06:08:11 GMT From: Derek Wood <ddwood@outlook.com> To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: docs/174029: [patch] faq: update #minimal-sh Message-ID: <201212010608.qB168BAd016461@red.freebsd.org> Resent-Message-ID: <201212010610.qB16A0QL044562@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Number: 174029
>Category: docs
>Synopsis: [patch] faq: update #minimal-sh
>Confidential: no
>Severity: non-critical
>Priority: low
>Responsible: freebsd-doc
>State: open
>Quarter:
>Keywords:
>Date-Required:
>Class: doc-bug
>Submitter-Id: current-users
>Arrival-Date: Sat Dec 01 06:10:00 UTC 2012
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator: Derek Wood
>Release:
>Organization:
>Environment:
>Description:
The attached patch updates the #minimal-sh question in the FAQ to link to the sh(1) man page, include the fact that tcsh(1) is in the base FreeBSD installation (and link to its man page), and refill the text of the question to be 70 columns wide.
>How-To-Repeat:
>Fix:
Patch attached with submission follows:
Index: en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/book.xml
===================================================================
--- en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/book.xml (revision 40165)
+++ en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/book.xml (working copy)
@@ -3975,8 +3975,8 @@
<qandaentry>
<question id="minimal-sh">
- <para>Why is <command>/bin/sh</command> so minimal? Why does
- &os; not use <command>bash</command> or another
+ <para>Why is <command>/bin/sh</command> so minimal? Why
+ does &os; not use <command>bash</command> or another
shell?</para>
</question>
@@ -3986,25 +3986,26 @@
<para>The more complicated answer: many people need to write
shell scripts which will be portable across many systems.
- That is why &posix; specifies the shell and utility commands
- in great detail. Most scripts are written in Bourne shell,
- and because several important programming interfaces
- (&man.make.1;, &man.system.3;, &man.popen.3;, and analogues
- in higher-level scripting languages like Perl and Tcl) are
- specified to use the Bourne shell to interpret commands.
- Because the Bourne shell is so often and widely used, it is
- important for it to be quick to start, be deterministic in
- its behavior, and have a small memory footprint.</para>
+ That is why &posix; specifies the shell and utility
+ commands in great detail. Most scripts are written in
+ Bourne shell (&man.sh.1;), and because several important
+ programming interfaces (&man.make.1;, &man.system.3;,
+ &man.popen.3;, and analogues in higher-level scripting
+ languages like Perl and Tcl) are specified to use the
+ Bourne shell to interpret commands. Because the Bourne
+ shell is so often and widely used, it is important for it
+ to be quick to start, be deterministic in its behavior,
+ and have a small memory footprint.</para>
<para>The existing implementation is our best effort at
meeting as many of these requirements simultaneously as we
- can. In order to keep <command>/bin/sh</command> small, we
- have not provided many of the convenience features that
- other shells have. That is why the Ports Collection
- includes more featureful shells like
+ can. In order to keep <command>/bin/sh</command> small,
+ we have not provided many of the convenience features that
+ other shells have. That is why &os; and the Ports
+ Collection include more featureful shells like
<command>bash</command>, <command>scsh</command>,
- <command>tcsh</command>, and <command>zsh</command>. (You
- can compare for yourself the memory utilization of all these
+ &man.tcsh.1;, and <command>zsh</command>. (You can
+ compare for yourself the memory utilization of all these
shells by looking at the <quote>VSZ</quote> and
<quote>RSS</quote> columns in a <command>ps
<option>-u</option></command> listing.)</para>
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201212010608.qB168BAd016461>