Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 19:08:35 +0900 From: "Akinori -Aki- MUSHA" <knu@idaemons.org> To: torstenb@vmunix.org Cc: billf@chc-chimes.com, ports@FreeBSD.org, shige@FreeBSD.org, torstenb@FreeBSD.org, asami@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: zsh re-org. Message-ID: <86vh3uravw.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org> In-Reply-To: In your message of "Sat, 12 Feb 2000 09:59:55 %2B0100 (CET)" <m12JYPD-000OSPC@onizuka.vmunix.org> References: <20000211224848.A92177@jade.chc-chimes.com> <m12JYPD-000OSPC@onizuka.vmunix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
At Sat, 12 Feb 2000 09:59:55 +0100 (CET),
Torsten Blum <torstenb@vmunix.org> wrote:
> Zsh 3.1.x is still beta and as long as this is the case I am, as the
> maintainer of ports/shells/zsh, _strongly_ against this. Having a stable
> shell is IMHO the most important thing. If anyone wants to play with new
> and cool features, that's fine for me. That's why we have zsh-devel.
> Replacing ports/shells/zsh with -devel forces everyone else to use a beta.
> This is definately not a good idea.
I second. I've ever been met with a certain problem, that zsh
3.1.[56] fails to load some extension modules after upgrading the
world while 3.0.x seems unaffected.
/home/knu/.zshrc: failed to load module: zle [1]
/home/knu/.zshrc: bindkey: autoload failed [1]
zsh: failed to load module: zle
knu@freebird[1]%
This is just an example that shows zsh-devel is somewhat less stable
than zsh, though it still works without its _powerful_ command line
editing.
I'd ask shells/zsh for stability and shells/zsh-devel for new
advanced features. I, as a hobbyist, will take the latter but such as
ISPs shall take the former, IMHO.
--
/
/__ __
/ ) ) ) ) /
Akinori -Aki- MUSHA aka / (_ / ( (__( <knu@idaemons.org>
"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice."
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86vh3uravw.wl>