Re: mksh import

[Alex Goncharov <alex-goncharov%comcast.net@localhost>]

,--- You/der (Sat, 1 Jan 2011 12:26:39 -0500 (EST)) ----*
| > Let me try to offer you a user's perspective.
|
| > And, any day of the week, I could say, "Thank God, Bash exists!.."
| 
| What does that have to do with what goes into base?

Did I try to suggest that?  I was replying to your comment on the
"modern":

,--- You/der Mouse (Fri, 31 Dec 2010 19:43:26 -0500 (EST)) ----*
|
| > I think that it would be good to have at least one modern shell in
| > our base, [...]
| 
| What meaning of "modern" are you using here?
| 
| Lots of people use "modern" this way, but I've seen almost as many
| meanings as I have people using it, so I no longer trust myself to
| understand what anyone using it actually means.
|
`--------------------------------------------------------*

| There are tons of tools I have and use (and mostly wrote) which lead me
| to say similar things[%].  But I'm not trying to get any of them into
| base; I draw a distinction between "this is useful to me" and "this is
| worth imposing on every install of NetBSD, including ones not involving
| humans indirecting with it directly".  I'm not even sure I think base's
| sh should have line editing support, though the benefit to humans doing
| broken-system repair may be worth it.

I don't have an opinion about what should go into NetBSD base :-)

But is sucks to use /bin/sh on the command line on any platform, IMHO.

| I've tried to use bare NetBSD, ie, without at least a handful of the
| most useful of those tools.  It's...painful.  I'm quite crippled until
| I get a reasonable subset of them in place.
| 
| Does that mean I think any of them belong in base?  No.  A few of them
| might, but utility to me is not the touchstone.

Not disagreeing with you -- always a pleasure to read your opinions.

Thanks!

-- Alex -- alex-goncharov%comcast.net@localhost --