tcsh fix

[Richard Coleman]

Tim Robbins wrote:
>>> I'm extremely happy with having tcsh instead of csh in the base
>>> system. As others have said, if someone has an operational
>>> requirement for plain old csh, they are free to install the port
>>> and make the appropriate links.
>> 
>> As an interested (and innocent) bystander, I'm not quite grasping
>> why it's an either/or proposition.  Why not just break the link,
>> grab net/open's /bin/csh and commit it?
> 
> 
> Because two copies of csh are two too many. If we were to import
> another shell into the base system, it would not be csh.

I have to agree.  I've never understood why people take it personal if 
something is not in the base.  Just because you install something as a 
port doesn't make it any less a part of your system.  It can actually be 
an advantage, since updating a small port like 44bsd-csh is pretty easy.

I would personally rather see it go in the opposite direction.  I would 
be happy if the ONLY shell in the base was a POSIX'ified sh.  That's 
really the only thing necessary for the base system.  Everything else 
could be a port.  Of course, removing things from the base is harder 
than adding them, so it won't happen any time soon.  And since there are 
more important things to worry about, the current setup is just fine 
with me.

Richard Coleman
rcoleman at criticalmagic.com