From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Sep 6 13:44:37 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from peak.mountin.net (peak.mountin.net [207.227.119.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16BB637B422 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 13:44:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by peak.mountin.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA25785; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 15:44:25 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from jeff-ml@mountin.net) Received: from dial-78.max1.wa.cyberlynk.net(207.227.118.78) by peak.mountin.net via smap (V1.3) id sma025781; Wed Sep 6 15:44:04 2000 Message-Id: <4.3.2.20000906150106.00b77ee0@207.227.119.2> X-Sender: jeff-ml@207.227.119.2 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3 Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 15:41:38 -0500 To: Neil Blakey-Milner From: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" Subject: Re: NO_TCSH issue Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <20000906140812.A25738@mithrandr.moria.org> References: <4.3.2.20000906044214.00b81920@207.227.119.2> <4.3.2.20000906044214.00b81920@207.227.119.2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 02:08 PM 9/6/00 +0200, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote: >On Wed 2000-09-06 (05:22), Jeffrey J. Mountin wrote: > > If you build with this option and remove /bin/(t)csh, buildworld will die > > when /usr/bin/vgrind is called like so: > >Well, this is obvious. You can't remove /bin/sh either. True, but there isn't a NO_SH option either and we all should know that it is required on many a system. At least one shell *is* needed. >"POLA" entails having /bin/csh that is csh-compatible. NO_TCSH is for >people who don't want to build and install new versions of csh. It >doesn't mean that you can run the system without it, and definitely >doesn't mean that you can remove it and expect things to build. I recall the csh/tcsh debate, but with NO_TCSH csh and the hardlink to tcsh neither are updated. My logic says that if they are not updated, then why keep them around. >NOPERL is another example. Try build your kernel without /usr/bin/perl. I disagree, as this is a poor example. This option, and others, are used more by those that wish to have an up-to-date version. Further, I could argue then it should be part of the build tools, if it is required. And yes, I do know that perl is needed somewhere on the system or many things will go BOOM. My question stems more from having a (eventually) truly modular system, which is why I question having a csh script. For those that don't use csh other than one time upon install, it is just another file not being used. Let's not get into another "which shell" debate, otherwise I'll have to request that ksh be in the base system. With a NO_KSH option for those that don't wish it. I would not ask that all scripts then use ksh. ;) It boils down to if it required, then why bother having NO_? option for it. Other options are somewhat dubious, as they are needed for various 3rd party software, but at least the system can be build without them. Jeff Mountin - jeff@mountin.net Systems/Network Administrator FreeBSD - the power to serve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message