cc: Alan.Coopersmith at sun.com Darren.Moffat at sun.com james.d.carlson at
sun.com ksh93-integration-discuss at opensolaris.org PSARC-ext at
sun.com
Subject: Re: Re: [busybox-dev] [ksh93-integration-discuss] ksh93 Integration
Update 1 Amendments1 [PSARC/2008/344 FastTrack timeout
James Carlson wrote:
[sorry, this one was stuck&&forgotten in my Drafts/-folder]
> Garrett D'Amore writes:
> > Have the upstream providers given thought to dealing with changes like
> > this and their impact on already-deployed scripts? (Maybe there aren't
> > any that we care about yet, since our
Roland Mainz wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Erm... the issue is the other way around - the use of builtin commands
> enables ksh93
I'm sure we can have this discussion off-ARC
size can be levereged when properly engineered
(properly == transparent to the user save space/time measurements)
a few years back we did a real world test on a handheld with
ksh+libshell.so+libcmd.so+libast.so+libcmd-main-stubs
where libcmd-m
Joerg Schilling wrote:
>You would need to prove this on an embedded system. I am not convinced at all.
Interesing discussion - But not as part of this case.
A future appliance/embedded OpenSolaris project is free (nay, almost
expected) to make its own choices as to which utilities it will use.
Al
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> James Carlson 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 def
John Plocher wrote:
> I. Szczesniak wrote:
> > It was always good practice to avoid C language keywords in shell
> > scripts. Quoting the Opensolaris programming style guide:
> > Do not use function names which are reserved keywords (or function
> > names) in C/C++/JAVA or the POSIX shell standard
"I. Szczesniak" wrote:
> On 5/28/08, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
[snip]
> > for either new
> > names in the language, or to reserve it for script author use (e.g.
> > names with a certain prefix are guaranteed to be "safe".)
>
> It was always good practice to avoid C language keywords in shell
> sc
Roland Mainz wrote:
> can we do "recommendations" in an ARC case (not strict rules... more
> being "suggestions") ?
Many times those comments are simply pointing out well known
architectural requirements that may be unknown to the project
teams.
Other items are explicitly called out as TCR's (aka
