I agree that we need to focus on the ksh93 integration and /bin/ksh
migration first. I don't think I'm ready to discuss ksh93 migration
to /bin/sh at this point.
April
> X-Sasl-enc: zX4GT2MMwvqIru3Jrim7af54ASgFptFVe9x+lMkeTzj9 1155417059
> Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:10:48 +0200
> From: Henk Langeveld <hlangeveld at mailworks.org>
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: Martin Schaffstall <martin.schaffstall at googlemail.com>
> CC: April Chin <April.Chin at eng.sun.com>, roland.mainz at nrubsig.org,
ksh93-integration-discuss at opensolaris.org
> Subject: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] ksh93 for /bin/sh?
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> > On 7/28/06, April Chin <April.Chin at eng.sun.com> wrote:
> >> I would prefer any proposed /usr/bin/sh migration be a follow-up
> >> to /usr/bin/ksh migration. Changing /usr/bin/sh may prove more
> >> difficult but
> >> then again the /usr/bin/ksh work may pave the way.
>
> Martin Schaffstall wrote:
> > April, it may be easier than you think. I have talked to Henk and we
> > think that updating /bin/sh to ksh93 may break much less scripts than
> > an update of /bin/ksh to ksh93
>
> Martin,
>
> That's true, but try to realise there's is more to /bin/sh than just
> portability. I came with the original suggestion, and I do think that
> having /bin/sh being a POSIX compliant shell would be a good thing in
> the end.
>
>
> The issues:
>
> Engineering Resources
>
> Change takes time - let's do one thing at a time. I was the one who
> quipped that replacing /bin/sh with ksh93 would be less controversial
> than replacing /bin/ksh. I still believe that, but April has now
> committed to this process.
>
> As long as there is progress with /bin/ksh, then let's focus on that.
>
>
> Compatibility
>
> I'm convinced replacing /bin/sh with ksh93 would hit less glitches
> than the replacement of /bin/ksh. ksh93 is a POSIX superset, which
> in turn is compatible with traditional Bourne /bin/sh behaviour.
> We can say the same for Bash, which is used as /bin/sh in Gnu/Linux.
>
>
>
> Performance
>
> ksh93 can run traditional /bin/sh scripts with little or no impact.
> Builtins can improve performance, common external routines like
> basename() and dirname() can be replaced with inline code ( progname=${0##*/}
).
>
> On the other hand, ksh93 has a larger footprint, and takes more time and
resources
> to start up than /bin/sh. (But once you've got the first instance running,
that
> point would be moot, not?)
>
>
> Discuss
>
>
> Regards,
> Henk
>
>
>
