On 01/11/2007, Jennifer Pioch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/1/07, Lurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Writing scripts with the assumption that /bin/sh is ksh93 is in itself a
> > very bad idea. And you can always do #!/usr/bin/ksh93
>
> Why? Did you even try the alternative or are you just s
Chris Pickett wrote:
> On 11/1/07, Dave Miner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jennifer Pioch wrote:
>>> /bin/sh -c 'print ${.sh.version}'
>>> /bin/sh: bad substitution
>>>
>>> I hoped Indiana would improve things and deliver the ksh 93 as
>>> /bin/sh, but no, it is just the same bourne shell as in
> Fight over nothing? What about those people who worked hard and
> accepted community input? It's a slap in their face, that's it.
ksh93 was ported because people asked for it and there was a long
lingering ARC. That didn't imply instant inclusion. Solaris shipped with
ksh88 since quite some time
> /bin/sh -c 'print ${.sh.version}'
> /bin/sh: bad substitution
>
> I hoped Indiana would improve things and deliver the ksh 93 as
> /bin/sh, but no, it is just the same bourne shell as in Solaris. No
> improvement. Indiana doesn't improve things for developers.
>
> The choice for /bin/bash as us
On 11/1/07, Mario Goebbels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > /bin/sh -c 'print ${.sh.version}'
> > /bin/sh: bad substitution
> >
> > I hoped Indiana would improve things and deliver the ksh 93 as
> > /bin/sh, but no, it is just the same bourne shell as in Solaris. No
> > improvement. Indiana doesn't i
On 11/1/07, Dave Miner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jennifer Pioch wrote:
> > /bin/sh -c 'print ${.sh.version}'
> > /bin/sh: bad substitution
> >
> > I hoped Indiana would improve things and deliver the ksh 93 as
> > /bin/sh, but no, it is just the same bourne shell as in Solaris. No
> > improvemen
Jennifer Pioch wrote:
> /bin/sh -c 'print ${.sh.version}'
> /bin/sh: bad substitution
>
> I hoped Indiana would improve things and deliver the ksh 93 as
> /bin/sh, but no, it is just the same bourne shell as in Solaris. No
> improvement. Indiana doesn't improve things for developers.
>
> The choi
* Jennifer Pioch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 11/1/07, Mario Goebbels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > /bin/sh -c 'print ${.sh.version}'
> > > /bin/sh: bad substitution
> > >
> > > I hoped Indiana would improve things and deliver the ksh 93 as
> > > /bin/sh, but no, it is just the same bourne sh
On 11/1/07, Lurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Writing scripts with the assumption that /bin/sh is ksh93 is in itself a very
> bad idea. And you can always do #!/usr/bin/ksh93
Why? Did you even try the alternative or are you just saying GNU tools
must be everywhere?
Jenny
--
Jennifer Pioch, Uni
Writing scripts with the assumption that /bin/sh is ksh93 is in itself a very
bad idea. And you can always do #!/usr/bin/ksh93
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
indiana-discuss mailing list
indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.open
On 11/1/07, Mario Goebbels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > /bin/sh -c 'print ${.sh.version}'
> > /bin/sh: bad substitution
> >
> > I hoped Indiana would improve things and deliver the ksh 93 as
> > /bin/sh, but no, it is just the same bourne shell as in Solaris. No
> > improvement. Indiana doesn't i
11 matches
Mail list logo
