>> Well, yes... for testing it may be helpfull (please please no flamewar >> on that) - and we can do the "ksh93-as-/usr/bin/ksh"-ARC case in >> _parallel_ to the general bugfixing and integration work (for example >> switching tools the "zfs" utillity over to use libshell.so). And we >> would have completed a milestone which is visible outside of this >> community, too...
April Chin wrote: > This is hopefully the way we can go...integrate /bin/ksh93 > and leave /bin/ksh link to /bin/oksh. Allow some time for transition > before we /bin/ksh becomes ksh93. As Roland says, users can > use ksh93 before the replacement, and hopefully unanticipated > problems will be flushed out, although we will make all > reasonable attempts to minimize such problems beforehand. >>> That'd be acceptable (in fact, probably trivial) from an ARC point of >>> view, but based on previous messages on this thread, it sounds like >>> "/usr/bin/ksh must always be ksh93 or Solaris is doomed, I tell ya, >>> doomed" is the prevailing opinion among a vocal set of users. Any >>> such plan likely has to skate between the requirements of those users >>> and the Solaris compatibility requirements. It might be easier still to replace /bin/sh with ksh93 and leave /bin/ksh for what it is... Additional advantage: A Posix shell would then be the default. Disadvantage: Performance - startup times, memory requirements previously discussed in this thread. -- Henk Langeveld
