>> POSIX does not deal with path names and thus does not require that >> /bin/sh is POSIX compliant. > >What do path names have to do with the shell command language?
I think Joerg means "the base system shell need not be /bin/sh". (I.e., the pathname to the base system shell is not defined and neither is the path to the standard shell in POSIX) >http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/xcu_chap02.html > >> Backwards compatibility requiers that /bin/sh remains the Bourne Shell. > >I don't agree. We have shown that sh and ksh93 are not compatible; in order to avoid ANY breakage you would need to not change it. I think there is no denying that fact. (Or you need to proof that there are no /bin/sh scripts in use on Solaris which execute differently under ksh/ksh93) Casper _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
