Josh Hurst wrote:
> On 8/6/07, Stephen Lau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Josh Hurst wrote:
>>> Shipping ksh88 as /bin/ksh in Indiana would be a disaster - first
>>> Opensolaris promises to replace the old ksh88 with a far superior
>>> ksh93, invests a year of development and then we neglect the promise
>>> and work. We'd be in deep dooo-doo if this happens. Neither would it
>>> be a good omen for other Opensolaris projects.
>> I agree Indiana should ship ksh93 (for both technical and licensing
>> reasons).
>>
>> Though, I have to point out.... I find it hard to believe that
>> Opensolaris, as a non-breathing, non-sentient thing would make such a
>> promise as to replace ksh88 with ksh93.
>>
>> From what I recall, the community members and sponsors involved stated
>> they would integrate ksh93 into the OpenSolaris source base - not that
>> they would replace ksh88.
>
> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/ksh93-integration/ reads: "The
> ksh93-integration project should investigate and execute the
> integration ... the migration of /usr/bin/ksh to the standard version
> of ksh93" and the ksh93 list has a long thread about "ksh88->ksh93
> migration plan".
>
> First paragraph. Hard to miss.
Projects can write anything they want on their project page - there is no
commitment from OpenSolaris overall to deliver everything a project puts
on their page. (But as already noted many times in this thread, that's
not going to affect what ksh is in Indiana - the licensing required using
ksh93 for that already.)
--
-Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
