On 06/17/10 14:55, Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:36:51PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
On 06/17/10 03:03, Andrey Chernov wrote:
Jilles Tjoelker<jil...@freebsd.org> writes:
Log:
sh: Add filename completion.
FWIW, what I actually do is set the shell for both root and my
unprivileged user to sh, compile bash static, and put a copy of the
static shell in /root. Then my .profile tests for the existence of
bash and execs it if available.
Hmm, I see no problems with setting the shell of my unprivileged user to
something dynamically linked in /usr/local/bin.
I use the same profile/bashrc/etc. for my local users, root, remote
users, etc. Starting with sh and only exec'ing bash if it's viable has
solved the occasional problem of something going screwy that prevents
bash from running (and thereby preventing me from logging in remotely).
It also helps when I'm in single user mode.
Yes, many other shells complete command names at appropriate places in
the line. However, at this time, it doesn't really fit in my idea of
what sh(1) should be.
If I'm understanding the other comments and various other feedback
correctly, at this point I think it would be worthwhile for you to post
your plans to -arch and let people comment before proceeding with more
changes.
Listing all possible command names is a fair bit
of functionality not present yet (sh only caches command pathnames that
have been used, it does not readdir all of $PATH like tcsh does).
This is a perfect example of why I'm concerned about adding incompletely
implemented features of an interactive shell to our sh. I'd prefer that
there be a separation, but if you do post your plans to -arch I'd like
to hear what others have to say as well.
I've been very supportive of Jilles work up to this point, and I think
he's done a great job of making our sh functional and compliant as a
scripting shell. However in my mind adding completion (and his suggested
inclusion of the kill builtin) tips the balance from "good system shell"
to more of an interactive shell, and that makes me wonder if this is the
right direction to go in. If we want a good interactive bourne-based
shell in the base I'd rather have the discussion about which one to
import, rather than trying to have our sh catch up with the last 15
years of development in this area.
--
... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
-- Propellerheads
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
