From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 13 15:23:36 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F32716A4CE; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:23:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from saturn.criticalmagic.com (saturn.criticalmagic.com [64.74.124.105]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CE1F43D31; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:23:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rcoleman@criticalmagic.com) Received: from [172.16.0.202] (c-24-99-11-35.atl.client2.attbi.com [24.99.11.35]) by saturn.criticalmagic.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04FED3BD10; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 10:23:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <419626FB.2070604@criticalmagic.com> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 10:23:39 -0500 From: Richard Coleman Organization: Critical Magic User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (X11/20041111) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Robbins References: <41940880.7070409@corserv.com> <20041112023023.GG19417@silverwraith.com> <20041112055543.GH19417@silverwraith.com> <41951400.8040805@corserv.com> <20041112213429.GD830@empiric.icir.org> <20041113041315.GA23384@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> In-Reply-To: <20041113041315.GA23384@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: Charles Sprickman cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org cc: Kevin Lyons Subject: Re: tcsh fix X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:23:36 -0000 Tim Robbins wrote: >>> I'm extremely happy with having tcsh instead of csh in the base >>> system. As others have said, if someone has an operational >>> requirement for plain old csh, they are free to install the port >>> and make the appropriate links. >> >> As an interested (and innocent) bystander, I'm not quite grasping >> why it's an either/or proposition. Why not just break the link, >> grab net/open's /bin/csh and commit it? > > > Because two copies of csh are two too many. If we were to import > another shell into the base system, it would not be csh. I have to agree. I've never understood why people take it personal if something is not in the base. Just because you install something as a port doesn't make it any less a part of your system. It can actually be an advantage, since updating a small port like 44bsd-csh is pretty easy. I would personally rather see it go in the opposite direction. I would be happy if the ONLY shell in the base was a POSIX'ified sh. That's really the only thing necessary for the base system. Everything else could be a port. Of course, removing things from the base is harder than adding them, so it won't happen any time soon. And since there are more important things to worry about, the current setup is just fine with me. Richard Coleman rcoleman@criticalmagic.com