Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 15:41:38 -0500 From: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" <jeff-ml@mountin.net> To: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NO_TCSH issue Message-ID: <4.3.2.20000906150106.00b77ee0@207.227.119.2> In-Reply-To: <20000906140812.A25738@mithrandr.moria.org> References: <4.3.2.20000906044214.00b81920@207.227.119.2> <4.3.2.20000906044214.00b81920@207.227.119.2>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 02:08 PM 9/6/00 +0200, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote: >On Wed 2000-09-06 (05:22), Jeffrey J. Mountin wrote: > > If you build with this option and remove /bin/(t)csh, buildworld will die > > when /usr/bin/vgrind is called like so: > >Well, this is obvious. You can't remove /bin/sh either. True, but there isn't a NO_SH option either and we all should know that it is required on many a system. At least one shell *is* needed. >"POLA" entails having /bin/csh that is csh-compatible. NO_TCSH is for >people who don't want to build and install new versions of csh. It >doesn't mean that you can run the system without it, and definitely >doesn't mean that you can remove it and expect things to build. I recall the csh/tcsh debate, but with NO_TCSH csh and the hardlink to tcsh neither are updated. My logic says that if they are not updated, then why keep them around. >NOPERL is another example. Try build your kernel without /usr/bin/perl. I disagree, as this is a poor example. This option, and others, are used more by those that wish to have an up-to-date version. Further, I could argue then it should be part of the build tools, if it is required. And yes, I do know that perl is needed somewhere on the system or many things will go BOOM. My question stems more from having a (eventually) truly modular system, which is why I question having a csh script. For those that don't use csh other than one time upon install, it is just another file not being used. Let's not get into another "which shell" debate, otherwise I'll have to request that ksh be in the base system. With a NO_KSH option for those that don't wish it. I would not ask that all scripts then use ksh. ;) It boils down to if it required, then why bother having NO_? option for it. Other options are somewhat dubious, as they are needed for various 3rd party software, but at least the system can be build without them. Jeff Mountin - jeff@mountin.net Systems/Network Administrator FreeBSD - the power to serve 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?4.3.2.20000906150106.00b77ee0>