From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Apr 16 3:57:33 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 A581737B590 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 03:57:29 -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 MAA26491 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:57:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id MAA00468 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:57:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5239837B8BD; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 19:48:42 -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 UAA45222; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:48:38 -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 UAA30122; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:48:13 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200004160248.UAA30122@harmony.village.org> To: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/contrib/tcsh - Imported sources Cc: Peter Wemm , Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami , Poul-Henning Kamp , Brian Somers , "David E. O'Brien" , cvs-committers@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 16 Apr 2000 02:41:19 +0200." <20000416024118.A71475@lucifer.bart.nl> References: <20000416024118.A71475@lucifer.bart.nl> <20000415231805.33B311CD7@overcee.netplex.com.au> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:48:13 -0600 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <20000416024118.A71475@lucifer.bart.nl> Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven writes: : Why sport csh or tcsh in the first place? Because this is BSD. BSD origniated csh and many people expect BSD to have csh of some flavor. : What is the gain versus having it in ports? Make world keeps it up to date. : As I said before, csh/tcsh is not the standard shell needed for : POSIX/SUS(v2) compliance. So? Neither is mergemaster. Yet we have it. That's not the reason csh is in the tree. : Scriptwriters should not depend on its presence, they should be writing : for /bin/sh instead. That's a specious argument. Few people write csh scripts, although some folks do. That's not why we have it in the first place. csh is an interactive shell. : Like I said to David, I have yet to hear a good (counter)argument to the : points I present to support csh or tcsh or any other shell than sh in : the base system. I didn't reply to that because it seemed to be so far from reality that I didn't know how to reply. : This subject is religious and the only way I can envision to quiet : everyone once and for all, is to just remove (t)csh and keep sh in the : base. *VETO* I *STRONGLY* disagree with this. That would make me yell and fuss and scream even louder than the kill it camp. And I don't think I'd be alone. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message