FYI: AIX - not Solaris - but "old-school UNIX" in both cases. And, yes - it is /bin/sh - which is the 'Bourne shell behavior" iirc, rather than ksh behavior, but the program is the default AIX (not solaris) ksh (see inode #)
26 -r-xr-xr-x 15 bin bin 1457 May 14 2012 hash 58 -r-xr-sr-x 1 root security 37092 Apr 25 2014 chsh 148 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root system 28 Feb 6 13:50 fcinit.sh -> /usr/sbin/rsct/bin/fcinit.sh 149 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root system 29 Feb 6 13:50 fcinit.csh -> /usr/sbin/rsct/bin/fcinit.csh 263 -r-xr-s--- 1 root system 5884 Mar 7 2014 refresh 331 -r-xr-xr-x 1 bin bin 918 May 14 2012 recsh 443 -r-xr-xr-x 1 bin bin 185344 Mar 7 2014 csh 460 -r-xr-xr-x 2 bin bin 2900986 Aug 20 2014 Rsh 460 -r-xr-xr-x 2 bin bin 2900986 Aug 20 2014 bsh 540 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root system 4690 May 6 2013 c_rehash 631 lrwxrwxrwx 1 bin bin 16 Dec 20 16:21 dsh -> /opt/csm/bin/dsh 829 -r-xr-xr-x 1 bin bin 287458 Mar 12 2013 msh 845 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root system 46 Dec 20 16:21 perfpmr.sh -> /data/prj/labserv/perf61-2014.04.30/perfpmr.sh 907 -r-sr-xr-x 2 root system 28270 Mar 8 2014 remsh 907 -r-sr-xr-x 2 root system 28270 Mar 8 2014 rsh 983 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root system 17 Dec 20 16:21 tclsh -> /usr/bin/tclsh8.4 986 -r-xr-xr-x 5 bin bin 292316 Jun 30 2014 ksh 986 -r-xr-xr-x 5 bin bin 292316 Jun 30 2014 psh 986 -r-xr-xr-x 5 bin bin 292316 Jun 30 2014 rksh 986 -r-xr-xr-x 5 bin bin 292316 Jun 30 2014 sh 986 -r-xr-xr-x 5 bin bin 292316 Jun 30 2014 tsh 1031 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root system 16 Dec 20 16:21 wish -> /usr/bin/wish8.4 AIX also supports ksh93 - but that is a different executable (different inode) michael@x071:[/usr/bin]ls -li *ksh* 986 -r-xr-xr-x 5 bin bin 292316 Jun 30 2014 ksh 932 -r-xr-xr-x 2 bin bin 902655 Jul 11 2014 ksh93 986 -r-xr-xr-x 5 bin bin 292316 Jun 30 2014 rksh 932 -r-xr-xr-x 2 bin bin 902655 Jul 11 2014 rksh93 On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Michael Felt <mamf...@gmail.com> wrote: > My "fear" is that autoconf has introduced this "catch-all" as I have been > running into it more frequently of late (first time was last November when > I took my first attempt at packaging gcc.) > > I shall look at the patch and let you know - however, regardless of > whether it works or not - is this something that autoconf is introducing, > read changed - requiring you to make a patch. If so, while from autoconf > perspective all may be well - it is not very user-friendly. (I just do not > understand autoconf well enough to make that distinction). > > Thanks for looking! and listening!! > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> [adding autoconf] >> >> On 06/04/2015 01:17 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: >> > >> > On 06/04/2015 09:41 AM, Michael Felt wrote: >> >> GEN src/coreutils.h >> >> /bin/sh: 0403-057 Syntax error at line 1 : `;' is not expected. >> > >> >> > Port to POSIX shell, which doesn't allow 'for i in ; do ...'. >> >> Actually, POSIX _does_ allow for missing words between 'in' and the >> terminator (; or newline) before 'do' (whether by a word that expands to >> nothing, or by omission of words), requiring that the body of the for >> statement is skipped in that case: >> >> >> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18_09_04 >> >> But it is also true that older shells did not always follow this rule, >> so you are indeed better off always supplying at least one word that >> won't be expanded into nothingness. >> >> Hmmm, I thought that autoconf would document it as a portability >> pitfall, but I don't see it under 'for' in this link: >> >> >> https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf.html#Limitations-of-Builtins >> >> -- >> Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 >> Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org >> >> >