Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 09:05:15 -0400 From: Yoshihiro Ota <st96yb9t@drexel.edu> To: asami@freebsd.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/contrib/tcsh - Imported sources Message-ID: <0FT400HDJ1KBK6@mail.ocs.drexel.edu> In-Reply-To: <vqc3dom8dkv.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> References: "Mark Murray's message of Sun, 16 Apr 2000 13:47:31 %2B0200" <vqcbt3a8fkm.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> <200004161147.NAA76123@grimreaper.grondar.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 4:55 AM -0700 4/16/00, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote:
> * From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za>
>
> * This, then is a shortcoming of the ports system; we need at least two
>
> It is not a shortcoming of the system; it is a policy decision. We
> don't want people upgrading their systems and losing packages
> installed in /bin because they only backed up /etc and
> /usr/{local,X11R6}. (It's assumed that people using ports have a
> little more clue than those who only use packages, that's why I don't
> see a problem with such a thing being a port.)
>
> If we are going to decide to allow ports/packages for things like the
> following, it is fine by me.
>
> * 1) statically linked and installed in (say) /local/{bin|sbin} (which is
> * in the root filesystem).
> *
> * 2) kernel modules.
>
> Satoshi
Hello all.
I just jumped into the mailing list because of the shell issue.
(Mail archive was not available from March 26th to April 15th; are there any
problems?)
Why are tcsh/bash needed in /bin or /local/{bin|sbin}, or let's say the root
filesystem?
I don't think we don't need any shells except sh and csh; we need sh and csh
because they are the only primary shells.
Tcsh/bash or other shells are yet optional. We have a really good system to
install such optional software so called ports/packages. We can install
tcsh/bash or other shells in /bin or /local/bin ourselves by setting the
PREFIX or some other possible ways. So, why do we need tcsh in the root
system?
I have realized that we have ports/packages system in order to keep base
system minimized unlike Linux and I really like that. Why do we need to
mess it up?
And I don't think the following problem happens because people know they
installed tcsh/bash/*sh in /bin.
> * This, then is a shortcoming of the ports system; we need at least two
>
> It is not a shortcoming of the system; it is a policy decision. We
> don't want people upgrading their systems and losing packages
> installed in /bin because they only backed up /etc and
> /usr/{local,X11R6}. (It's assumed that people using ports have a
> little more clue than those who only use packages, that's why I don't
> see a problem with such a thing being a port.)
This is one request of the end users.
Thank you for your attention.
Hiro
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0FT400HDJ1KBK6>