Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 07:36:49 +0530 From: Mayuresh Kathe <mayuresh@kathe.in> To: Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Sending Tcsh to packages/ports ... Message-ID: <695ab639fc872647cef88e09f8e4162f@kathe.in> In-Reply-To: <CAHu1Y70K=E-4EY6bjy9-59LCmX0a0u4ga2_mCywiTdmk4suW-w@mail.gmail.com> References: <64780f09d4251b9641e3bca39000ae2d@kathe.in> <CAHu1Y70K=E-4EY6bjy9-59LCmX0a0u4ga2_mCywiTdmk4suW-w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Couldn't you have simply done; ls -lh *csh instead? Also you can see they are the same binary. Doesn't matter that it is small, why have stray stuff lying around? On 2019-03-29 07:33 AM, Michael Sierchio wrote: > KUDZU@HEARST:/BIN 130> ll -i | grep csh > > 198147 -r-xr-xr-x 2 root wheel 427888 Jun 22 2018 csh* > > 198147 -r-xr-xr-x 2 root wheel 427888 Jun 22 2018 tcsh* > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 6:59 PM Mayuresh Kathe <mayuresh@kathe.in> > wrote: > >> Since Tcsh is usually imported, why not send it to packages/ports >> collection? >> I agree that "csh" is an historically important artifact, but do we >> need >> to still rely on that? >> I have been using "csh" ever since I started using FreeBSD, liked >> it, >> but it doesn't feel light like plain old "sh" nor is as feature-full >> as >> "bash". To top that, the installer asks me to choose between "csh" >> and >> "tcsh" in-spite of being the same binary. >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >> "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > -- > > "Well," Brahma said, "even after ten thousand explanations, a fool is > no wiser, but an intelligent person requires only two thousand five > hundred." > > - The Mahābhārata
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?695ab639fc872647cef88e09f8e4162f>