> > Are you going to 'fix' sh then?
   > 
   > Uhm, I thought our sh doesn't use vfork() because it has issues.
   
   They are all (or at least all the known ones are) fixed.


the point remains that /bin/sh has been using fork() not vfork() for 
basiaclly the entire life of netbsd... the few attempts at changing
this have so far all failed.  sh doesn't need 'fixing'.

the point also remains that any program that fails when vfork is
really fork is also broken.  what do you do on systems that *don't*
have a real vfork?  eg, like 4.4BSD?


.mrg.