svn commit: r343440 - head/bin/sh

[Rodney W. Grimes]

> On 0125T1647, Devin Teske wrote:
> > > On Jan 25, 2019, at 1:13 AM, Edward Napierala <trasz at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > > On 0125T1530, Devin Teske wrote:
> > >>> On Jan 25, 2019, at 12:28 AM, Edward Napierala <trasz at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > >>> On 0125T1441, Devin Teske wrote:
> > >>>>> On Jan 25, 2019, at 1:37 PM, Edward Napierala <trasz at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > >>>>> pt., 25 sty 2019 o 19:57 Rodney W. Grimes
> > >>>>> <freebsd at pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net <mailto:freebsd at pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net>> napisa?(a):
> > >>>>>>> Author: trasz
> > >>>>>>> Date: Fri Jan 25 17:09:26 2019
> > >>>>>>> New Revision: 343440
> > >>>>>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/343440
> > >>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>> Log:
> > >>>>>>> Comment out the default sh(1) aliases for root, introduced in r343416.
> > >>>>>>> The rest of this stuff is still to be discussed, but I think at this
> > >>>>>>> point we have the agreement that the aliases should go.
> > >>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>> MFC after:  2 weeks
> > >>>>>>> Sponsored by:       DARPA, AFRL
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> Please just revert this and the prior commit out, and when
> > >>>>>> the path forward is clear commit it.  I would not want any of this
> > >>>>>> merged to 12/ or 11/ until the time that it is all settled.
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> Oops, my bad - neither this nor the previous commit is supposed
> > >>>>> to be MFC-ed; the "2 weeks" above comes from my default Subversion
> > >>>>> config.
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> Regarding the backoff - just a few hours ago you said you don't have
> > >>>>> any problem with this, except for aliases and the default ENV.  The
> > >>>>> aliases problem has been addressed, and you hadn't yet responded
> > >>>>> to my explanations regarding the ENV.  Another committer asked for
> > >>>>> backoff, because "sh is not an interactive shell", while in fact sh(1)
> > >>>>> is FreeBSD's default interactive shell except for root.  Finally, there's
> > >>>>> one person who asked for revert, but without giving any reasons
> > >>>>> whatsoever.
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> So far nobody had proposed any scenario where this would break
> > >>>>> anything, or even affect existing users.  It seems like a typical bikeshed
> > >>>>> situation.
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> It is not clear to me after reading r343416 and D18872 what this change is trying to solve.
> > >>> 
> > >>> The idea is to make it easy to replace the default root shell - which
> > >>> many people consider broken, due to not supporting basic shell syntax - with
> > >>> something that actually works.
> > >> 
> > >> How exactly does changing PS1 or adding 6 aliases fix the "basic shell syntax" which you claim to be unsupported?
> > >> 
> > >> If the number of aliases added to a shell are a measure of its brokenness, then bash must be hella broken (I have 43 aliases in my bash_profile).
> > > 
> > > The aliases are gone.
> > 
> > Fair enough, albeit the topic was r343416 and D18872.
> > 
> > 
> > >  Human-friendly PS1 is considered a standard feature
> > > nowadays.
> > 
> > I fail to see how ''$ " is unfriendly.
> 
> How many people you know use a plain '$' as a shell prompt,
> because they like it that way?

I am prefectly happy with any single character prompt on
any OS I might happen to be working on, knowing that I
can change it at my leasure.

However I am NOT happy with a stringy long ass prompt
that eats up half my command line when I am deep down
a file hierarchy trying to fix some problem at a
single user prompt on a hardwired conssole I had to
jack into the box cause it wont come up.

Yes I can change either at will, and so can anyone
else who wants to, lets stop spoon feeding a new
default and spoon feed up some docs on "you may
want to tweak this" after you have installed.

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes at freebsd.org