From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Apr 22 11:19:08 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA00350
          for current-outgoing; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 11:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dyson.iquest.net (dyson.iquest.net [198.70.144.127])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA00343;
          Tue, 22 Apr 1997 11:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from root@localhost) by dyson.iquest.net (8.8.4/8.6.9) id NAA02417; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 13:18:23 -0500 (EST)
From: John Dyson <dyson@dyson.iquest.net>
Message-Id: <199704221818.NAA02417@dyson.iquest.net>
Subject: Re: Recent vfork kernel changes broke csh & tcsh!
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970422212025.363D-100000@nagual.ru> from "[______ ______]" at "Apr 22, 97 09:27:08 pm"
To: ache@nagual.ru (=?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?=)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 13:18:23 -0500 (EST)
Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, current@freebsd.org, dyson@freebsd.org
Reply-To: dyson@freebsd.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> Can we left vfork at traditional BSD stage and not make it
> as powerful as rfork is? It seems some programs expect traditional
> semantics...
> 
The problem is that the new vfork re-implemented the traditional BSD
method...  Too much code appears to be broken.

John