Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 23:31:12 +0200 From: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> To: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" <jeff-ml@mountin.net> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NO_TCSH issue Message-ID: <20000906233112.B32184@mithrandr.moria.org> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.20000906150106.00b77ee0@207.227.119.2>; from jeff-ml@mountin.net on Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 03:41:38PM -0500 References: <4.3.2.20000906044214.00b81920@207.227.119.2> <4.3.2.20000906044214.00b81920@207.227.119.2> <20000906140812.A25738@mithrandr.moria.org> <4.3.2.20000906150106.00b77ee0@207.227.119.2>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed 2000-09-06 (15:41), Jeffrey J. Mountin wrote: > 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. To provide a "BSD system", you need to have csh around. > >"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. The existence of NO_TCSH is mostly for the same reason as the existence of perl - "We have our own copy, don't overwrite it." That's why NO_SENDMAIL existed too. You can't have a "functional" system without /usr/sbin/sendmail of _some_ variety, but you could replace sendmail with exim, postfix, or qmail, or a later version of sendmail, and you don't want that clobbered. It's almost exactly the same example. There is a 44bsd-csh port for people who want old csh, and those people don't want tcsh clobbering it. > 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. ;) I can see where you're coming from, but you aren't allowed to complain if you remove something that is there and something doesn't work. If I removed perl (because I hate it with a passion and think python rocks the world (this is an example)), and my kernel compile or ports builds break, I couldn't complain either. > 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. I'm not against the rewrite in 'sh' if it is a function-for-function replacement. I do however think you're taking leaps in your argument for not having /bin/csh at all. I can think of a number of scripts from ports that will break. 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?20000906233112.B32184>