Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 11:24:26 -0800 From: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Importing mksh in base Message-ID: <66278F75-5162-46A5-BF2A-DC4C3F0F35BD@cschubert.com> In-Reply-To: <C9B49E76-30FC-42FB-9B44-AC9740E26655@FreeBSD.org> References: <20190125165751.kpcjjncmf7j7maxd@ivaldir.net> <D43F06EE-A6A9-4F7D-BF81-8EC2298F86C9@cschubert.com> <C9B49E76-30FC-42FB-9B44-AC9740E26655@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
First time I've tried replying inline on this newer phone. Bear with me as this reply may not look like I intend it to. On January 25, 2019 11:07:55 AM PST, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > >Le 25 janvier 2019 18:12:58 GMT+01:00, Cy Schubert ><Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> a écrit : >>On January 25, 2019 8:57:51 AM PST, Baptiste Daroussin >><bapt@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >>>Hi everyone, >>> >>>I would like to import mksh in base, https://www.mirbsd.org/mksh.htm >>>And make it the default root shell (not necessary in one step) >>> >>>Why: >>>1/ it is tiny 400k (in the packaged version) all other shells fitting >>>the >>>expectation are bigger >>>2/ it's default frontend in interactive mode is very close to what >>most >>>people >>>are used to with bash and shells as default root shell on other BSD >>and >>>most >>>linuxes >>>3/ from my narrow window csh as a default root shell is one of the >>>major >>>complaint (usually the first thing a user get faced to) from new >>comers >>>and >>>also for some long timers who are reinstalling a machine and have not >>>yet >>>installed/configured a bourne compatible shell >>> >>>What this proposal is _NOT_ about: >>>1/ the removal of tcsh from base >>>2/ any kid of denial of the quality and interest or features of csh >>> >>>What do you think? >>>Best regards, >>>Bapt >> >>Why not ksh93 instead? It is the original and authoritative Korn >shell. >>EPL is compatible with the BSD license. Personally, I've been toying >>with the idea of importing ksh93 for a while now. >> > >The reason I chose mksh is because it is heavily maintained and from >the testing I have done it was the "nicer" interface > Ksh93 is also heavily maintained. Look at their github activity. My ksh93-devel port has been tracking updates (I consider important). >>As to replacing root's shell, replacing tcsh is a large POLA >violation. > >It will not replace in existing installation just make it the default >in new installation I can t see how this is a POLA violation if it is >in new setup on new major version (upgrades won t be affacted) > >> Maybe give users the option at install time instead. > >Doable, unsure it is worth it but yes we can do that if that is asked a >lot I'm less concerned about this and am willing to concede this point if I have to. However as ksh93 is IMO the better ksh and it's not a clone, it's the real ksh, and the license is compatible, why would we settle on less than the real thing? -- Pardon the typos and autocorrect, small keyboard in use. Cheers, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> FreeBSD UNIX: <cy@FreeBSD.org> Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?66278F75-5162-46A5-BF2A-DC4C3F0F35BD>