[ My text regarding perl, tcsh etc]

On Mon, 9 Jan 1995, Darren Reed wrote:

> I think one good reason *not* to distribute them with NetBSD is that they
> evolve (patches, etc) outside of it.  Currently, NetBSD only requires to
> be updated with gcc (cc) and sendmail - I'm not aware of any other programs
> that are part of the NetBSD distribution which are "controlled" from outside
> of core.
> [...]

	I would guess bind, gawk, gzip, & gtar are just a few more programs
	controlled from outside of core (Or am I missing something? :)

On Sun, 8 Jan 1995, Ted Lemon wrote:

> [...]
>              I don't know of anybody who runs csh instead of tcsh by 
> choice - in general it's because they don't know tcsh is out there.   
> If they were given tcsh instead of csh, they'd be perfectly happy, and
> might not even notice for a while.
>
> [...]
>
> I too agree on shipping perl standard - doing meaningful install
> scripts in Bourne shell is certainly possible, but who has the time to
> hack that stuff?   If we could count on perl being present, I suspect
> a lot more would happen on that front.

	Ok - final plea here for tcsh to replace csh in the standard
	build - I think tcsh is a major asset to anyone using the command
	line (except maybe those 150 wpm perfect typists - & even then there
	are some nice extras), and for perl to be included.

			David

	



  D.K.Brownlee@city.ac.uk (MIME). Network Analyst. Postmaster. Hostmaster.
              (>=-=<)   Telephone: (+44) 171 477 8186.   (>=-=<)
  Computing Services, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB.
 .------------------------------------------------------------------------.
  \ Gratuitous advertising      Monochrome BBS      telnet mono.city.ac.uk \
   `------------------------------------------------------------------------'