From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Apr 16 3:57:56 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 6E2A637BCFE for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 03:57:41 -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 MAA26529 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:57:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id MAA00599 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:57:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lucifer.bart.nl (lucifer.bart.nl [194.158.168.74]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913F837B6FD; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 17:41:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from asmodai@lucifer.bart.nl) Received: (from asmodai@localhost) by lucifer.bart.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA71519; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 02:41:19 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from asmodai) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 02:41:19 +0200 From: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven To: Peter Wemm Cc: Warner Losh , Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami , Poul-Henning Kamp , Brian Somers , "David E. O'Brien" , cvs-committers@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/contrib/tcsh - Imported sources Message-ID: <20000416024118.A71475@lucifer.bart.nl> References: <20000415231805.33B311CD7@overcee.netplex.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000415231805.33B311CD7@overcee.netplex.com.au>; from peter@netplex.com.au on Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 04:18:05PM -0700 Organisation: bART Internet Services B.V. Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG -On [20000416 01:20], Peter Wemm (peter@netplex.com.au) wrote: >IMHO, the way to keep most people happy (or least unhappy :-]) is to finish >the tcsh thing, and change root's shell to /bin/sh and probably change the >default new-user shell to sh as well if it isn't already. Why sport csh or tcsh in the first place? What is the gain versus having it in ports? As I said before, csh/tcsh is not the standard shell needed for POSIX/SUS(v2) compliance. Scriptwriters should not depend on its presence, they should be writing for /bin/sh instead. >I know a lot of people stopped reading the thread fairly early on. Please >refrain from commenting unless you go back and read the thread to >completion - lets not have the same things argued about all over again. >(This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, just a general request). I read the whole thread, and posted a summary of it to -arch. 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. 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. -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven Network- and systemadministrator VIA NET.WORKS The Netherlands BSD: Technical excellence at its best http://www.bart.nl Fame is the perfume of heroic deeds... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message