From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Apr 22 11:28:58 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA01062
          for current-outgoing; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 11:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kithrup.com (kithrup.com [205.179.156.40])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA01057
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 11:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from sef@localhost) by kithrup.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id LAA21302; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 11:28:55 -0700
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 11:28:55 -0700
From: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@Kithrup.COM>
Message-Id: <199704221828.LAA21302@kithrup.com>
To: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Recent vfork kernel changes broke csh & tcsh!
Newsgroups: kithrup.freebsd.current
In-Reply-To: <199704221236.WAA18843.kithrup.freebsd.current@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Am I the only one who thinks that restoring behaviour known to be a defect
in the original implementation is a BAD idea?

Sun did similar idiotic things when they required an include of <vfork.h>.

How many applications are going to break because of this change?  Not just
because of library code, but because the semantics of an important system
call have now reverted to buggy behvaiour?

Sean.