Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 10:07:47 -0400 From: Ray Kohler <ray@rjk191.rh.psu.edu> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NO_TCSH issue Message-ID: <20000906100747.A2116@rjk191.rh.psu.edu> In-Reply-To: <20000906155134.B2108@linux.rainbow>; from igor@raduga.dyndns.org on Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 03:51:34PM %2B0400 References: <4.3.2.20000906044214.00b81920@207.227.119.2> <20000906155134.B2108@linux.rainbow>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 03:51:34PM +0400, Igor Roboul wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 05:22:42AM -0500, Jeffrey J. Mountin wrote: > > However, I thought all shell scripts were supposed to be Bourne. This is > Why? Most of my personal scripts are for csh. Just because I like it. > And csh is default shell for root. And having csh is RIGHT THING in BSD. I think the issue here is not whether csh is right, but that setting a legitimate, documented option and taking it to its logical conclusion breaks world. I also seem to remember that when tcsh was MFC'd, someone checked out the tree for any leftover csh scripts and said it was clean. I'd say vfgrind ought to be rewritten in Bourne, just to keep everything consistant. (Of course, since the current trend is to rewrite all our scripts in C anyway, this may soon become moot. -- Ray Kohler <rjk191@psu.edu> FreeBSD -- The Power to Serve Computers will not be perfected until they can compute how much more than the estimate the job will cost. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000906100747.A2116>