docs/87351: Jail building instructions don't work as described with default CSH shell

[Eli K. Breen]

I realize I may be opening a can of worms, but as I agree with you on 
the usefulness of csh(1), why do we continue to use csh as the default 
shell being that I'd hazard most sane mortals use sh or bash?

I would definitely prefer to have both sets of instructions, but 
honestly given one line needs to be changed ever so slightly, it would 
look silly to reproduce the entire script multiple times with only that 
change.

If you prefaced the script with "This script is optimized for csh, see 
below for other shells" and then just list the optimal way to export 
env. vars. for the other popular shells.

D=/foo;export (sh)
export D=/foo (bash)

-E-

Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On 2005-10-26 13:38, "Eli K. Breen" <bsd at unixforge.net> wrote:
> 
>>Call me madcap, but wouldn't it make more sense to have the base case
>>example match the default shell, with exceptions for other shells as the
>>side-comments?
> 
> 
>>Given how little of this script/instructions need to change to suit csh,
>>something like...
>>
>>[...]
>>#For csh
>>	set D=/here/is/the/jail
>>#For bourne shells (sh,bash,...)
>>	D=/here/is/the/jail
>>cd /usr/src
>>mkdir -p $D
>>[...]
>>
>>or
>>
>>[...]
>>#For csh
>>	set D=/here/is/the/jail
>>#For bourne shells (sh,bash,...)
>>#	D=/here/is/the/jail
>>cd /usr/src
>>mkdir -p $D
>>[...]
> 
> 
> Nope.  csh(1) is terrible for scripting and only mildly annoying for
> interactive use.  I'd accept something that lists *two* sets of commands
> that can be copied to a file and minimally changed to alter the $D path,
> but intermixing scripts that run in sh(1), csh(1), zsh(1) or anything
> else is not very nice imho :/
>