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

2006-01-29 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Saturday 28 January 2006 12:30, Marcelo Góes wrote: > On 1/28/06, Grobian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The question here now actually is: "is csh worth the hassle, or not?" > > My opinion is that it is not. > > csh_is_not_worth_it++; > It is causing trouble and not adding functionality. Unless

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

2006-01-28 Thread Marcelo Góes
On 1/28/06, Grobian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The question here now actually is: "is csh worth the hassle, or not?" > My opinion is that it is not. csh_is_not_worth_it++; It is causing trouble and not adding functionality. Unless there are cases where tcsh is not backwards compatible, I say it

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

2006-01-28 Thread Grobian
On 28-01-2006 01:47:27 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 12:05:30PM +0300, Peter Volkov (pva) wrote: > > To solve symlink problem I can suggest the following. > Rather than handling it manually, perhaps eselect can help handle it > consistently, and allow users to switch when

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

2006-01-28 Thread Grobian
On 28-01-2006 09:38:05 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:31:55 +0100 Grobian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | In fact, I'd like to have only sh, because I never use bash. > > How did you become a Gentoo developer? Guess I forgot to put the word 'interactively' at the end of tha

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

2006-01-28 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Saturday 28 January 2006 10:47, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > Rather than handling it manually, perhaps eselect can help handle it > consistently, and allow users to switch when they have both csh and > tcsh installed. I started working on something like that for gtar/bsdtar, but I found that I don

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

2006-01-28 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 12:05:30PM +0300, Peter Volkov (pva) wrote: > To solve symlink problem I can suggest the following. Rather than handling it manually, perhaps eselect can help handle it consistently, and allow users to switch when they have both csh and tcsh installed. -- Robin Hugh Johnso

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

2006-01-28 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:31:55 +0100 Grobian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | In fact, I'd like to have only sh, because I never use bash. How did you become a Gentoo developer? -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (King of all Londinium) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http

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

2006-01-28 Thread Grobian
On 28-01-2006 12:05:30 +0300, Peter Volkov (pva) wrote: > 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 rem

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

2006-01-28 Thread 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 upd

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

2006-01-25 Thread Grobian
On 25-01-2006 16:19:54 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Wednesday 25 January 2006 15:47, Stuart Herbert wrote: > > The csh package currently has a maintainer who is an active Gentoo > > developer; have you spoken to taviso first to find out whether he > > wants to remove csh from the tree? > > la

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

2006-01-25 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 15:47, Stuart Herbert wrote: > The csh package currently has a maintainer who is an active Gentoo > developer; have you spoken to taviso first to find out whether he > wants to remove csh from the tree? last we talked with taviso he had no problem punting csh -mike --

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

2006-01-25 Thread Stuart Herbert
Hi, On 1/25/06, Grobian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Because csh is rather old and tcsh can be used as replacement, I would > like to have csh removed from the tree, then have tcsh always providing > the symlink csh -> tcsh. The situation is a bit the same as Gentoo not > providing an ebuild for

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

2006-01-25 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Grobian wrote: > 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. ... > Because csh is rather old and tcsh can be used as replacement, I would > like to h

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

2006-01-25 Thread Grobian
Hi all, We currently have both tcsh and csh in the tree. For those who don't know what they are: they are shells. tcsh is the more sophisticated little brother of csh. Their relationship is roughly comparable to the relationshop between bash and sh shells. Like bash and sh, tcsh is able to rep