On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 05:09:06PM -0600, Kevin Lyons wrote:
you missed the rest of the thread. /bin/csh is not /bin/tcsh. i have
run into a fairly important compatibility problem brought on by this. later.
As you've been told, calling tcsh as csh should activate csh
compatibility mode
Kevin Lyons [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I humbly suggest that /bin contain csh and tcsh. Is that too hard?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~% ll /bin/*csh
-r-xr-xr-x 2 root wheel 699446 Nov 5 18:12 /bin/csh*
-r-xr-xr-x 2 root wheel 699446 Nov 5 18:12 /bin/tcsh*
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 11:37:57 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dag-Erling Smørgrav) wrote:
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~% ll /bin/*csh
-r-xr-xr-x 2 root wheel 699446 Nov 5 18:12 /bin/csh*
-r-xr-xr-x 2 root wheel 699446 Nov 5 18:12 /bin/tcsh*
He meant both shells, not a hardlink. csh and tcsh
you missed the rest of the thread. /bin/csh is not /bin/tcsh. i have
run into a fairly important compatibility problem brought on by this. later.
.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
. Folks and programs that rely on old csh get funny
surprises when tcsh is called csh. For what, so that there is no tcsh
in /shells?
I am sure I do not have to elucidate on the problems this can cause.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http
Dan Nelson wrote:
but you're 4 years too late to affect
the outcome...
I think the problem can still be fixed. Simply put in /bin/tcsh and let
/bin/csh be what it actually is, which is to say /bin/csh. I realize
that will add all of 300kB to the system. Oh and there would also have
Richard Coleman wrote:
I think the reality is that most people here would rather deal with a
few csh incompatibilities in order to have a much more featureful shell,
rather than use an ancient shell in order to get bug for bug compatibility.
I humbly suggest that /bin contain csh and tcsh
Kevin Lyons wrote:
Dan Nelson wrote:
but you're 4 years too late to affect
the outcome...
I think the problem can still be fixed. Simply put in /bin/tcsh and
let /bin/csh be what it actually is, which is to say /bin/csh. I
realize that will add all of 300kB to the system. Oh and there would
AIX - not tried yet
FreeBSD - does not work (they knew better and renamed tcsh csh rather
than just calling a spade a spade, some commit bit vandal got a hair to
rename parts of the world for the sake of mankind.)
linux - not tried yet
I'm not opposed to adding a real csh to /bin, but if we're
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 09:20:28AM -0600, Kevin Lyons wrote:
FreeBSD - does not work (they knew better and renamed tcsh csh rather
than just calling a spade a spade, some commit bit vandal got a hair to
rename parts of the world for the sake of mankind.)
[...]
I'm not opposed to adding
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kevin Lyons [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: I'm not opposed to adding a real csh to /bin, but if we're only adding
: it to work around a minor incompatability that few if any programs rely
: on I don't see it as being a necessity.
:
: And the microsoft
it is a mistake for freebsd to put a copy of tcsh in
/bin and call it csh. Folks and programs that rely on old csh get funny
surprises when tcsh is called csh. For what, so that there is no tcsh
in /shells?
I am sure I do not have to elucidate on the problems this can cause.
[disclaimer: I
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 06:59:32PM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 04:00:25PM -0600, Kevin Lyons wrote:
Thus, if there is a bug in tcsh's csh compatibility mode, you really
might do better to report it to the tcsh maintainers - on the several
occassions when I've needed
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 09:20:28AM -0600, Kevin Lyons wrote:
FreeBSD - does not work (they knew better and renamed tcsh csh rather
than just calling a spade a spade, some commit bit vandal got a hair to
rename parts of the world for the sake of mankind.)
That would be me.
1. Why don't you
David O'Brien wrote:
1. Why don't you ask about this on the tcsh mailing lists?
I have.
2. OR why don't you send me a patch that fixes the bug?
This behavoir is described in the man page so I thought it was intended.
My thinking was if tcsh wants this fine. It is just not compat with
csh which
I have (re)discovered that tcsh is not csh although the tcsh man page
falsely asserts backward compatibility. Trying to do a simple read of
multiword variables in tcsh fails yet works find on csh. The tcsh man page
admits as much when one gets to the $ part.
The point is, csh should
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 04:37:06PM -0600, Kevin Lyons wrote:
I have (re)discovered that tcsh is not csh although the tcsh man page
falsely asserts backward compatibility. Trying to do a simple read of
multiword variables in tcsh fails yet works find on csh. The tcsh man page
admits as much
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Kevin Lyons wrote:
I have (re)discovered that tcsh is not csh although the tcsh man page
falsely asserts backward compatibility. Trying to do a simple read of
multiword variables in tcsh fails yet works find on csh. The tcsh man page
admits as much when one gets
In the last episode (Nov 11), Kevin Lyons said:
I have (re)discovered that tcsh is not csh although the tcsh man page
falsely asserts backward compatibility. Trying to do a simple read
of multiword variables in tcsh fails yet works find on csh. The tcsh
man page admits as much when one gets
Kevin Lyons wrote:
I have (re)discovered that tcsh is not csh although the tcsh man page
falsely asserts backward compatibility. Trying to do a simple read of
multiword variables in tcsh fails yet works find on csh. The tcsh man page
admits as much when one gets to the $ part.
The point
20 matches
Mail list logo
