James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote:
> Darren J Moffat writes:
> > While it is ksh93 I don't think any of this really matters that much
> > because you have to explicitly ask for ksh93. On the other hand if this
> > same implementation was exporting this same functionality by default
> > when it was used as the implementation of /bin/sh I would feel very
> > differently. This still isn't the case to make ksh93 /usr/bin/ksh which
> > is where I think this type of issue matters most.
>
> True enough, though, because of Indiana, we're already hacking our
> system scripts to comply with ksh93's differing requirements.
Why?
Did you thing about the fact that ksh93 is _really_ big and that people who
like to use OpenSolaris in embedded environments probably cannot use ksh93 for
this reason? The scripts from OpenSolaris are currently writen for the Bourne
shell and thus would run with a really small shell. Don't change code that
works......
J?rg
--
EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
