On 26-Aug-01 Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 01:20:23PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Our csh still behaves differently like any /bin/csh on
any other system that I know, and can't be easily made to
behave like them.
This is an assertion. Where is your supporting evidence?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrey A. Chernov writes:
: Complaints _are_ easily addressed, tcsh author is responsible and fix all
: thing that I report to him. If you complain about 'upgrade' problem, i.e.
: we don't have latest tcsh, ask our tcsh maintainer for upgrade.
I'm our tcsh
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 02:02:21PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Probably because it's just too late. During the initial
discussion, the voices pro and contra were about 50:50 (at
least that was my impression), and finally the pro ones
succeeded, probably because they had more weight (this
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 11:10:53PM -0500, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
Then please enumerate them so that they can be given due attention.
This is exactly the sort of detailed feedback that was requested when
we first raised the issue of switching over, and nobody could come up
with any
David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
_But_ my vote would be for still having a real csh in
/bin, additionally. (And don't tell me that tcsh is a
real csh -- it's not, see below.)
By chance have you looked at the csh source in the CSRG SCCS files?
How about the tcsh sources from
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 13:20:23 +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Our csh still behaves differently like any /bin/csh on
any other system that I know, and can't be easily made to
behave like them.
When I wrote real csh, I meant a csh which exhibits the
traditional behaviour and user interface
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 01:50:33AM -0500, Jim Bryant wrote:
For 5.0, I maybe the black sheep in saying this, but I'd like to see
/bin/csh be the real thing for 5.0. By all means, leave tcsh in
/bin, but for the sake of backwards compatability,
The motto used to be do it right, not do it the way WE want it on OUR
machines, and screw the people who don't make the decisions or cause to much
trouble to ignore.
It still is. And recognising that csh has evolved over the last decade
is part of doing it right.
What you're really saying
On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, Mike Smith wrote:
The motto used to be do it right, not do it the way WE want it on OUR
machines, and screw the people who don't make the decisions or cause to much
trouble to ignore.
It still is. And recognising that csh has evolved over the last decade
is part
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 02:57:31PM -0500, Kaila wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, Mike Smith wrote:
Naming linking it to csh broke things for people who weren't informed it was
happeneing, and then had to go and spend hours tracking down the problem and
fixing it.
How could you be uninformed
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 01:20:23PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Our csh still behaves differently like any /bin/csh on
any other system that I know, and can't be easily made to
behave like them.
This is an assertion. Where is your supporting evidence?
Kris
PGP signature
Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
When I wrote real csh, I meant a csh which exhibits the
traditional behaviour and user interface (look and feel,
if you prefer) of a csh. tcsh does not. Someone used to
work with a real csh simply can't be happy with tcsh,
especially if he has to change
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 14:14:48 -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
While we may be stuck with this bait-and-switch upgrade, I
think his complaints are not co easily addressed. Certainly,
the exec complaint remains valid, in any case: it's a bug
that csh didn't have.
Complaints _are_ easily
It still is. And recognising that csh has evolved over the last decade
is part of doing it right.
No, doing it right would have been including tcsh and deprecating csh, then
dropping it later as has been done with other things.
This is what was done. The old csh is deprecated, but
Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 02:57:31PM -0500, Kaila wrote:
Naming linking it to csh broke things for people who weren't
informed it was happeneing, and then had to go and spend hours
tracking down the problem and fixing it.
How could you be uninformed about this change?
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 01:20:23PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Our csh still behaves differently like any /bin/csh on
any other system that I know, and can't be easily made to
behave like them.
This is an assertion. Where is your supporting evidence?
Hit TAB?
--
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 03:01:33PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 01:20:23PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Our csh still behaves differently like any /bin/csh on
any other system that I know, and can't be easily made to
behave like them.
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 03:01:33PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 01:20:23PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Our csh still behaves differently like any /bin/csh on
any other system that I know, and can't be easily made to
Terry Lambert wrote:
I was still grumpy about the change, but that at least was
enough to mollify me into not objecting loudly and persitantly
up to the import.
Let me get this straight, though: _now_ you are saying that
the system wide defaults and account template defaults will
be
Peter Wemm wrote:
Jordan Hubbard wrote:
Because of certain differences, it cannot be used wholesale as a
replacement for csh.
Then please enumerate them so that they can be given due attention.
This is exactly the sort of detailed feedback that was requested when
we first raised the issue of
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 01:50:33AM -0500, Jim Bryant wrote:
For 5.0, I maybe the black sheep in saying this, but I'd like to see
/bin/csh be the real thing for 5.0. By all means, leave tcsh in
/bin, but for the sake of backwards compatability, IMHO `ln
/bin/tcsh /bin/csh` was a bad idea.
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 11:10:53PM -0500, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
So yes, there's a difference. But, on the flip side, I think that
the fact that it's been this long without anybody screaming majorly
(after the initial shakedown, of course)
Thus spake Jim Bryant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
It's kinda late in the process to be complaining about this, but I just noticed this
myself...
That's why it is in the ports collection.
Alex
--
WELCOME DATACOMP!
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in
From: Jim Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:23:01 -0500
Because of certain differences, it cannot be used wholesale as a
replacement for csh.
Then please enumerate them so that they can be given due attention.
This is
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 09:46:00AM -0700, a little birdie told me
that Jordan Hubbard remarked
From: Jim Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Because of certain differences, it cannot be used wholesale as a
replacement for csh.
Then please enumerate them so that they can be given due attention.
This
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 11:10:53PM -0500, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
So yes, there's a difference. But, on the flip side, I think that
the fact that it's been this long without anybody screaming majorly
(after the initial shakedown, of course) kinda sums it up.
There are differences in
Jordan Hubbard wrote:
Because of certain differences, it cannot be used wholesale as a
replacement for csh.
Then please enumerate them so that they can be given due attention.
This is exactly the sort of detailed feedback that was requested when
we first raised the issue of switching
Why is csh tcsh?
There are differences...
4:52:48pm wahoo(6): cmp /bin/csh /bin/tcsh
4:59:12pm wahoo(7):
jim
--
ET has one helluva sense of humor!
He's always anal-probing right-wing schizos!
_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free
Search the freebsd-arch archives. Big long hairy discussion,
culminating in the import of the most recent csh, tcsh.
Old csh is available as ports/shells/44bsd-csh.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 05:03:29PM -0500, Jim Bryant wrote:
Why is csh tcsh?
There are differences...
4:52:48pm
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 05:03:29PM -0500, Jim Bryant wrote:
Why is csh tcsh?
There are differences...
4:52:48pm wahoo(6): cmp /bin/csh /bin/tcsh
4:59:12pm wahoo(7):
tcsh is the newer version of csh.
Kris
PGP signature
I'm aware of this, I have used tcsh since it first appeared on comp.sources.unix, many
moons ago.
Because of certain differences, it cannot be used wholesale as a replacement for csh.
I'm all for tcsh being in /bin, but I don't think that it's a good idea to replace the
industry-standard csh
31 matches
Mail list logo