On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Joerg Schilling <[email protected]> wrote: > Lionel Cons <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Problems: >> - SchilliX uses Bourne shell as /usr/bin/sh, not ksh93. This pretty >> much kills the option > > Could you please stop spreading lies?
I'm new to the list, so excuse me if this has been discussed beforehand. Joerg, could you please explain what the lie here exactly is? I don't get it. Also, who really wants to go back to the Bourne shell (the old one... not bash)? Who is going to maintain it? bash and ksh93 have active communities with many people working on it, while for the Bourne shell I only see one active person, which is Joerg Schilling. Who is going to fix all software packages which expect that /usr/bin/sh is something more posixly? Does this project have the manpower to adjust every configure, every call to system(), every call to popen(), every perl/python script with embedded calls to the shell? Who is going to push the patches to upstream and convinces them to take them? This sound pretty much like an endless Don Quichotte fight which just consumes developer time for no purpose and benefit. Simon _______________________________________________ belenix-discuss mailing list http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/belenix-discuss http://groups.google.com/group/belenix-discuss
