Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: tcsh vs. csh, removal of the latter

[Peter Volkov (pva)]

On Срд, 2006-01-25 at 20:57 +0100, Grobian wrote:
> Are there any objections to removing csh from the tree?  If there are no
> problems with csh removal before Feb 1st 2006, then I will starting from
> that date work on getting csh removed by masking it, blocking tcsh and
> csh, and request for updates of the packages that depend on csh.

Thinking a little bit on subject I'd say I object. There is a big
difference in size between csh and tcsh:
  -rwxr-xr-x  1 root root 130148 Янв 28 08:11 /bin/csh
  -rwxr-xr-x  1 root root 299136 Янв 28 08:13 /bin/tcsh
So tcsh is *2.3 times bigger* then csh. Of course, that's not a big pain
for current desktop or server systems. But gentoo is used for different
purposes... Also personally I like small system and I'm not using csh
for anything except for installing packages. So I do not need anything
except basic csh functionality. Thus for me it's better to leave csh and
remove tcsh (I know this is bad solution ;) ).

> Problem here is that creating a conditional symlink for csh -> tcsh is a
> bit dirty, and leaves the user with a system that has no csh in case the
> csh is unmerged after tcsh was installed.

To solve symlink problem I can suggest the following.
1. As it should be done now, tcsh should create symlink csh -> tcsh if
csh does not exist (in src_install()).

2. csh ebuild should create csh -> tcsh symlink if tcsh exist during
unmerge. This is possible with pkg_postrm:
pkg_postrm () {
    [ -e /bin/tcsh ] && ln -s /bin/tcsh /bin/csh
}

3. tcsh should remove csh -> tcsh symlink on unmerge. 
pkg_postrm () {
    [ -e /bin/tcsh ] && ln -s /bin/tcsh /bin/csh
}

Not a very clean solution, but works.

BTW. Why tcsh is a blocker for csh?

Peter.