| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On 1/25/06, Grobian <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> Because csh is rather old and tcsh can be used as replacement, I would |
| 5 |
> like to have csh removed from the tree, then have tcsh always providing |
| 6 |
> the symlink csh -> tcsh. The situation is a bit the same as Gentoo not |
| 7 |
> providing an ebuild for sh, and bash just installing a symlink for |
| 8 |
> sh -> bash. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I don't agree that the comparison holds true. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It appears to be true that the tree doesn't contain a true Bourne |
| 13 |
shell (although we could always look at the OpenSolaris sources if we |
| 14 |
ever wanted one [1]), but the tree does contain these alternatives to |
| 15 |
bash: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
* app-shells/ash |
| 18 |
* app-shells/ksh |
| 19 |
* app-shells/pdksh |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The BSD userland doesn't link /bin/sh to /bin/bash; I'm not sure what |
| 22 |
they use as /bin/sh. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The csh package currently has a maintainer who is an active Gentoo |
| 25 |
developer; have you spoken to taviso first to find out whether he |
| 26 |
wants to remove csh from the tree? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
[1] http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/sh.html |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Best regards, |
| 31 |
Stu |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives