Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:13:15 +1100 From: Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org> To: Charles Sprickman <spork@fasttrackmonkey.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tcsh fix Message-ID: <20041113041315.GA23384@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSX.4.61.0411121652530.2370@oof.local> References: <41940880.7070409@corserv.com> <20041112023023.GG19417@silverwraith.com> <20041112055543.GH19417@silverwraith.com> <41951400.8040805@corserv.com> <20041112213429.GD830@empiric.icir.org> <Pine.OSX.4.61.0411121652530.2370@oof.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:53:58PM -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote: > On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Bruce M Simpson wrote: > > >I'm extremely happy with having tcsh instead of csh in the base system. As > >others have said, if someone has an operational requirement for plain old > >csh, they are free to install the port and make the appropriate links. > > As an interested (and innocent) bystander, I'm not quite grasping why it's > an either/or proposition. Why not just break the link, grab net/open's > /bin/csh and commit it? Because two copies of csh are two too many. If we were to import another shell into the base system, it would not be csh. Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041113041315.GA23384>