Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:17:34 +0100 From: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> To: obrien@NUXI.com, Dom Mitchell <dom@myrddin.demon.co.uk> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Shells for you and shells for me Message-ID: <19981102151734.A25766@cons.org> In-Reply-To: <19981101164732.A22829@nuxi.com>; from David O'Brien on Sun, Nov 01, 1998 at 04:47:32PM -0800 References: <3633C8F8.EF8E14D5@null.net> <Pine.BSF.4.05.9810252016090.375-100000@picnic.mat.net> <19981026125133.A2717@netmonger.net> <19981029012621.A26396@nuxi.com> <E0zZEYK-000047-00.qmail@myrddin.demon.co.uk> <19981101164732.A22829@nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In <19981101164732.A22829@nuxi.com>, David O'Brien wrote: > On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 01:25:20PM +0000, Dom Mitchell wrote: > > To be frank, I think that pdksh is definitely something that we should > > be looking at for that reason alone. If we import it into the tree > > and leave it installed as /bin/ksh, then people can test it at their > > leisure to see if it is worth replacing /bin/sh, and we also gain a > > ksh. It's a good situation. > > This sounds like a good compromise. Unless there is serious objections, > I'll look into doing this. Well, the only objection is that this doesn't offer much over having a ksh port/package that is marked required by ports that can't live with FreeBSD's sh. On the other hand, it bloats the base system by ~320 KB (statically linked) and since it isn't used by anything in the base system, people will probably object against it. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> http://www.cons.org/cracauer BSD User Group Hamburg, Germany http://www.bsdhh.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19981102151734.A25766>