Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 16:14:57 +0200 From: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> To: rjk191@psu.edu Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NO_TCSH issue Message-ID: <20000906161457.A27426@mithrandr.moria.org> In-Reply-To: <20000906100747.A2116@rjk191.rh.psu.edu>; from ray@rjk191.rh.psu.edu on Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 10:07:47AM -0400 References: <4.3.2.20000906044214.00b81920@207.227.119.2> <20000906155134.B2108@linux.rainbow> <20000906100747.A2116@rjk191.rh.psu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed 2000-09-06 (10:07), Ray Kohler wrote: > 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. The only logical conclusion of NO_TCSH is that you /bin/csh will not be overwritten. Anything beyond that is not logical. > 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. tcsh is fully csh-compatible. In fact, our csh was an early version of tcsh. > (Of course, since the current > trend is to rewrite all our scripts in C anyway, this may soon > become moot. The only scripts I've noted being rewritten recently are killall and which, both with good reason. There are still plenty of scripts left on the system, and I doubt anyone particularly wants to rewrite them in C. Neil -- Neil Blakey-Milner Sunesi Clinical Systems nbm@mithrandr.moria.org 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?20000906161457.A27426>