On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 11:49:53AM -0500, Edward J. Huff wrote: > On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 15:25, Dan Merillat wrote: > > On Fri, 07 Nov 2003, Edward J. Huff wrote: > > > > > #! /bin/ksh > > > > Well, that's pretty useless right there. > > > > /bin/sh is pretty standard. ksh is optional and fairly rare > > in my experience. > > Does that mean, for instance that you actually don't have > it installed on _your_ system? Try before you answer. > Also, please try running an executable script starting > with #! /bin/ksh.
I don't. Debian sid. > > It is certainly standard on Solaris, and on BSD. > > But poking around in comps.xml, I see that possibly RedHat > installs the pdksh package only when you do a full install > or ask for it. (I installed "everything"). > > However, I think the following _is_ true: if /bin/sh is > not actually bash masquerading as sh, then /bin/ksh is > installed. I'm reading more about portable shell scripts > in the GNU autobook. > > I see that rpm -qf --scripts /bin/ksh shows that installing > the ksh rpm adds /bin/ksh to /etc/shells, and erasing it > removes the /bin/ksh line. Also, Linux (RedHat) ksh is pdksh, > not the released AT&T ksh88 or ksh92 (which is available as an rpm). > > I also see that on Linux, /bin/sh is a symbolic link to bash. > Bash notices when it is invoked as /bin/sh, and behaves > differently. But apparently it doesn't do this for ksh. > > -- Ed Huff -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
