Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:03:34 +0100 From: Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely12.cicely.de> To: Paul Armstrong <freebsdhackers@otoh.org> Cc: Kevin Lyons <klyons@corserv.com> Subject: Re: tcsh fix Message-ID: <20041112230333.GV772@cicely12.cicely.de> In-Reply-To: <20041112175005.GG1807@suricate.otoh.org> References: <41940880.7070409@corserv.com> <20041112023023.GG19417@silverwraith.com> <20041112031122.GA87071@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> <20041112055543.GH19417@silverwraith.com> <20041112160528.GA91711@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> <20041112175005.GG1807@suricate.otoh.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 09:50:05AM -0800, Paul Armstrong wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 05:05:28PM +0100, Erik Trulsson wrote: > > > This is to provide compatibility whn working with multiple versions of > > > Unix. > > > I write many scripts in sh on Solaris, and find they just don't work on > > > Linux because /bin/sh on Linux is really /bin/bash and is not bacwards > > > compatible. I HATE this. We shouldn't do this, and should do anything > > > like this. > > > > Again - backwards compatible with what? Might it not be the case that > > it is your scripts for Solaris-sh which uses non-standard features and > > therefore fails on bash (which actually tends to be very > > standards-compliant.) > > Indeed. Keep in mind that if you want a standard Bourne implementation > on Solaris (or at least one that complies to POSIX.2a-1992), then you > need to start your scripts with /usr/xpg4/bin/sh rather than /bin/sh. I often missed features in FreeBSD ash that Solaris /bin/sh had, such as using ^ sign as an | alternative (in germany one often has to search the | key on bad configured terminals, which was not uncommon in field service). I also often missed the vi mode and command history of FreeBSDs ash in Solaris. To get both sides happy you have to build it into *one* shell and not complaining your missing features are more important than what others need. > Given that it's easier (and shouldn't actually do any harm to the base > OS) to commit the 44bsd csh as /bin/csh (or just simply remove the link > for /bin/csh->/bin/tcsh) than continue to argue about this, would > someone with a commit bit please make this thread go away? It's much easier getting the compatbility bug fixed in tcsh by contacting the tcsh maintainers than senseless asking for yet another shell in the base. Have you ever tried contacting the tcsh team about this issue? Having two shells is just bleeding base and the discussion about csh vs. tcsh is long time ago - it even already made it into -stable. -- B.Walter BWCT http://www.bwct.de bernd@bwct.de info@bwct.de
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041112230333.GV772>