From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Apr 16 6: 2:51 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 6AD2537B537 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 06:02:49 -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 PAA27245 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:02:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id PAA01057 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:02:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.ocs.drexel.edu (mail.irt.drexel.edu [129.25.3.58]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77D0337B8F4; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 06:02:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from st96yb9t@drexel.edu) Received: from [10.0.0.11] (adsl-151-197-17-59.bellatlantic.net) by mail.ocs.drexel.edu (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.03.02.17.58.p5) with ESMTP id <0FT400HDI1KAK6@mail.ocs.drexel.edu>; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 09:02:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 09:05:15 -0400 From: Yoshihiro Ota Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/contrib/tcsh - Imported sources In-reply-to: To: asami@freebsd.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Message-id: <0FT400HDJ1KBK6@mail.ocs.drexel.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Macintosh Eudora Pro Version 3.1.1-Jr1 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: "Mark Murray's message of Sun, 16 Apr 2000 13:47:31 +0200" <200004161147.NAA76123@grimreaper.grondar.za> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 4:55 AM -0700 4/16/00, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote: > * From: Mark Murray > > * 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