"I. Szczesniak" wrote: > > A suggestion from a PSARC member was to keep /bin/ksh (Solaris's > > ksh) as is, until it is replaced by ksh93, rather than introducing > > these new obscure names for Solaris's ksh. Then when ksh93 becomes > > /bin/ksh, > > to move Solaris's ksh to a separate package (not part of the main package > > clusters). > > This is a suspicious suggestion. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1. IMO such comments are slightly contra-productive. 2. PSARC is NOT evil and also not in league with the illuminati, satan and/or kermit the frog :-) 3. They're just doing their job, trying to analyse the impact on customers. Backwards-compatbility is very important for Solaris and their job is to avoid that all hell breaks loose. And switching /bin/ksh to ksh93 is a BIG leap forward. > First PSARC suggested a transition > period and now they want a 'all or nothing' solution? Is PSARC > actually WILLING to allow the integration of ksh93 as /bin/ksh? IMO yes, otherwise we wouldn't be here and sacrifying our free time (it's 3:45am here right now) ... [snip] > >, so ksh93 would be a more > > descriptive and portable name, since no other OS uses nksh as far as > > I know. > > Pls remember that nksh was selected to make clear there is a new > version of ksh and that there will be an update of /bin/ksh soon. Umpf... yes... but April also has a very good point with the /bin/ksh93 name (it is descriptive and also used on other platforms). In theory we could simply use both names (/bin/nksh and /bin/ksh93) if we cannot reach consens about that... :-) ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
