Alan Hargreaves wrote:
> The functionality to change shell is in passwd, but there is a
> completely wrong check in there.
>
> See CR 6638715 Checks in passwd should be authorisation based, not uid based
And of course the ancient RFE 1226020 *other* RFE: add chfn & chsh commands to
Solaris 2
(
On Feb 8, 2008 6:01 AM, Joerg Schilling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Really, any changes to the existing shell, whether its outright
> > replacement or otherwise need a lot of testing.
> >
> > I myself even created a patch to add support for "export B
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Really, any changes to the existing shell, whether its outright
> replacement or otherwise need a lot of testing.
>
> I myself even created a patch to add support for "export BLAH=FOO"
> syntax to the current /bin/sh:
> http://icculus.org/~eviltypeguy/sh
On Feb 7, 2008 9:16 PM, Alan Hargreaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The bit that everyone putting forward this argument seems to overlook is
> the sheer number of scripts in ON that are written for the bourne shell.
> Each and every one of these would need to be verified against the new
> shell. W
The functionality to change shell is in passwd, but there is a
completely wrong check in there.
See CR 6638715 Checks in passwd should be authorisation based, not uid based
Which I logged a few weeks back.
Back onto the "Let's replace /bin/sh with
thread", ...
The bit that everyone putting f
On Feb 7, 2008 1:45 PM, Ken Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:53:04 -0600
> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 7, 2008 12:42 PM, a b <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes, they have, and what's why it needs to be changed :)
> > > >
> > > > Oh wa
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:53:04 -0600
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2008 12:42 PM, a b <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, they have, and what's why it needs to be changed :)
> > >
> > > Oh wait...you were talking about Solaris ;)
> >
> > I think this is too harsh. If you
> Except HP-UX is dead/dormant for all practical purposes. HP is on the
> GNU/Linux bandwagon now.
While it might be true that hp is on the Linux bandwagon now, HP-UX hardware
still makes 17% of the overall hp revenue, and, I told you already, HP-UX is
not dead but being actively worked on.
Yo
On Feb 7, 2008 12:42 PM, a b <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yes, they have, and what's why it needs to be changed :)
> >
> > Oh wait...you were talking about Solaris ;)
>
> I think this is too harsh. If you were working on HP-UX, you'd find
> that the OS is even more rigid in not changing anythin
> Yes, they have, and what's why it needs to be changed :)
>
> Oh wait...you were talking about Solaris ;)
I think this is too harsh. If you were working on HP-UX, you'd find
that the OS is even more rigid in not changing anything than
Solaris. Solaris is almost ultra-liberal in that respect.
I
On Feb 7, 2008 10:42 AM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 2008 4:14 PM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Shawn Walker wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Feb 6, 2008 3:37 PM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> Shawn Walker wrote
Shawn Walker wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 4:14 PM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Shawn Walker wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 6, 2008 3:37 PM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
Shawn Walker wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 3:18 PM, a b <[EMAIL PROTEC
On Feb 7, 2008 9:59 AM, Joerg Schilling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The long-term view is that other platforms will have a POSIX shell at
> > #!/bin/sh and OpenSolaris, in my view, should have one as well to meet
> > those changing market conditions.
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The long-term view is that other platforms will have a POSIX shell at
> #!/bin/sh and OpenSolaris, in my view, should have one as well to meet
> those changing market conditions.
How about running the following test on various platforms:
/bin/sh -c 'fo
On Feb 6, 2008 4:14 PM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 2008 3:37 PM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Shawn Walker wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Feb 6, 2008 3:18 PM, a b <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Oh, and as far as the enterprise arg
On Feb 7, 2008 1:08 AM, Ken Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you have any actual enterprise systems admin experience? And if so,
> I'd be curious as to what platforms. Or is your role more primarily
> along the lines of Open/Solaris evangelist? Just curious so I can
> understand where y
On Feb 7, 2008 5:10 AM, Joerg Schilling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > A modern shell, such as ksh93, has functionality and locale support
> > that is near equivalent or superior to bash.
>
> Are you talking about the report against /bin/sh that claims
On Feb 7, 2008 7:41 AM, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "Ignacio Marambio Catán" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Seriously; FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, GNU/Linux, and many others all
> > > provide a better /bin/sh...
> > >
> >
> > what we really need is a way for users to change thei
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A modern shell, such as ksh93, has functionality and locale support
> that is near equivalent or superior to bash.
Are you talking about the report against /bin/sh that claims a bug because
/bin/sh _has_ locale support but bash has not?
Jörg
--
EMai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >7) Continues to cause issues for users and developers when dealing
> >with multiple systems
>
>
> 1-6 are easily solved with changing root's default shell.
>
> 7, unfortunately, is not as it requires replacing /bin/sh with /bin/bash
> and that, I think, it something few
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The tools are available for you to find the bugs if you want to see them.
>
> It took me all of a few moments to put together these searches:
> http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/search.do?process=1&type=bug&sortBy=relevance&bugStatus=1-dispatched&p
"Ignacio Marambio Catán" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Seriously; FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, GNU/Linux, and many others all
> > provide a better /bin/sh...
> >
>
> what we really need is a way for users to change their own shells without
> root privileges in /etc/passwd
I would call this a bug in
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:55:07 -0600
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 3:37 PM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Shawn Walker wrote:
> > > On Feb 6, 2008 3:18 PM, a b <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh, and as far as the enterprise argument, go talk to some
On Feb 6, 2008 5:38 PM, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 2:36 PM, Ken Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:12:59 -0600
> > "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 6, 2008 1:16 PM, Joerg Schilling
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 3:37 PM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Shawn Walker wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 6, 2008 3:18 PM, a b <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh, and as far as the enterprise argument, go talk to some of the
>>> enterprise sysadmins who post here; the
On Feb 6, 2008 3:37 PM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 2008 3:18 PM, a b <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, and as far as the enterprise argument, go talk to some of the
> > enterprise sysadmins who post here; they hate that /bin/sh isn't
> > anywhe
Shawn Walker wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 3:18 PM, a b <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Oh, and as far as the enterprise argument, go talk to some of the
> enterprise sysadmins who post here; they hate that /bin/sh isn't
> anywhere near portable across systems.
>
>
It's also not part of any standard
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you like to have an acceptable workaround for the ill-designed IBM-PC
> > keyboard, you should use "rxvt" or the "gnome terminal". This will give you
> > the expected "DEL" character from the key at the mechanical position of the
> > "delete key".
>
On Feb 6, 2008 3:27 PM, Joerg Schilling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > ANd giving them ksh (or even dash I imagine) on Solaris isn't going to
> > > be that noticeable then, or any better. Theonly thing they'll
> > > appreciate is giving them bash com
On Feb 6, 2008 3:18 PM, a b <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > Someone had the guts to stand up against the ultraconservative
> > 'backwards compatibility is our religion' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Opensolaris cannot afford such Bourne shell extravaganza anymore
>
> You don't run many mission critical
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ANd giving them ksh (or even dash I imagine) on Solaris isn't going to
> > be that noticeable then, or any better. Theonly thing they'll
> > appreciate is giving them bash complete with it's bugs.
>
> A working backspace key isn't going to be noticed?
> Someone had the guts to stand up against the ultraconservative
> 'backwards compatibility is our religion' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Opensolaris cannot afford such Bourne shell extravaganza anymore
You don't run many mission critical workloads on the server side of things, do
you?
This ain't dusti
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 1:16 PM, Joerg Schilling
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Compared to bash, /bin/sh (the Burne Shell) is bug-free.
> > >
> > > I don't think you'll find many users that agree.
> >
> > T
"Josh Hurst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 7, unfortunately, is not as it requires replacing /bin/sh with /bin/bash
> > and that, I think, it something few would be willing to do.
>
> FYI Ubuntu uses dash as /bin/sh and Suse will use dash in the future.
> ksh93 has been discussed but it needs to
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 1:10 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 7, unfortunately, is not as it requires replacing /bin/sh with /bin/bash
> > and that, I think, it something few would be willing to do.
>
> I don't see why 7 isn't an option, even if it does cause
Shawn Walker wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 2:35 PM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Shawn Walker wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 6, 2008 2:26 PM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
Shawn Walker wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 1:16 PM, Joerg Schilling
>>
On Feb 6, 2008 2:36 PM, Ken Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:12:59 -0600
> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 6, 2008 1:16 PM, Joerg Schilling
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Compared to b
On Feb 6, 2008 2:35 PM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 2008 2:26 PM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Shawn Walker wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Feb 6, 2008 1:16 PM, Joerg Schilling
> >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> "Shawn Walk
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:12:59 -0600
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 1:16 PM, Joerg Schilling
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Compared to bash, /bin/sh (the Burne Shell) is bug-free.
> > >
> > > I don't think you'll fin
Shawn Walker wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 2:26 PM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Shawn Walker wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 6, 2008 1:16 PM, Joerg Schilling
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Compared
On Feb 6, 2008 2:26 PM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 2008 1:16 PM, Joerg Schilling
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> Compared to bash, /bin/sh (the Burne Shell) is bug-free.
>
> >>>
Shawn Walker wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 1:16 PM, Joerg Schilling
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
Compared to bash, /bin/sh (the Burne Shell) is bug-free.
>>> I don't think you'll find many users that agree.
>>>
>> This
On Feb 6, 2008 1:16 PM, Joerg Schilling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Compared to bash, /bin/sh (the Burne Shell) is bug-free.
> >
> > I don't think you'll find many users that agree.
>
> This is because most bash users don't understand POSIX nor
> c
On Feb 6, 2008 1:45 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >FYI Ubuntu uses dash as /bin/sh and Suse will use dash in the future.
> >ksh93 has been discussed but it needs to be licensed as LGPL or GPL
> >before Suse can use ksh93 as /bin/sh.
>
>
> Dash? That's a new one (and a brand of detergent fo
>FYI Ubuntu uses dash as /bin/sh and Suse will use dash in the future.
>ksh93 has been discussed but it needs to be licensed as LGPL or GPL
>before Suse can use ksh93 as /bin/sh.
Dash? That's a new one (and a brand of detergent for washing machines)
Why not gosh? (Which would be the name of
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Compared to bash, /bin/sh (the Burne Shell) is bug-free.
>
> I don't think you'll find many users that agree.
This is because most bash users don't understand POSIX nor
care about bugs. They are not even interested in knowing the
reason for a probl
On 2/6/08, Bruno Jargot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/6/08, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 2008 11:23 AM, Joerg Schilling
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Feb 6, 2008 11:08 AM, Joerg Schilling
> > > > <[EMAIL
On 2/6/08, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 12:30 PM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Shawn Walker wrote:
> > > On Feb 6, 2008 11:59 AM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2/6/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >1) *NOT* POSIX compliant
> >7) Continues to cause issues for users and developers when dealing
> >with multiple systems
>
> 7, unfortunately, is not as it requires replacing /bin/sh with /bin/bash
> and that, I think, it something few wou
On Feb 6, 2008 1:10 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 7, unfortunately, is not as it requires replacing /bin/sh with /bin/bash
> and that, I think, it something few would be willing to do.
I don't see why 7 isn't an option, even if it does cause *some* degree
of break in compatibility.
I think th
>I think you mean 'non-homogeneous'. ;) Otherwise you'd have no problems
>because you'd have no different platforms.
>
>If linux is one of your platforms though, then you still have problems,
>since /bin/sh is bash on there, and not ksh93, and you'll still have
>feature, and behaviour differen
>Since it seems that one group cares more about what they end up with
>when they login as, or su to root, and the other group seems to care
>more about scripts that use #!/bin/sh running correctly, then maybe,
>just maybe (dare I say it?) the solution is to just make the default
>passwd entry
>1) *NOT* POSIX compliant
>
>2) Buggy
>
>3) Provides a poor user experience
>
>4) Lacks proper internationalization support
>
>5) Reflects poorly on Solaris
>
>6) Hasn't been actively maintained
>
>7) Continues to cause issues for users and developers when dealing
>with multiple systems
1-6 are
On Feb 6, 2008 12:49 PM, Joerg Schilling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Sorry, but unless you are able to explain problems, I ned to asume that
> > > you
> > > don't know what you are talking about.
> > >
> > > Why should sh have problems with "certa
On Feb 6, 2008 12:47 PM, Joerg Schilling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If linux is one of your platforms though, then you still have problems,
> > since /bin/sh is bash on there, and not ksh93, and you'll still have
> > feature, and behaviour difference
On Feb 6, 2008 12:30 PM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 2008 11:59 AM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> 1) *NOT* POSIX compliant
>
> >>>
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sorry, but unless you are able to explain problems, I ned to asume that you
> > don't know what you are talking about.
> >
> > Why should sh have problems with "certain terminals"?
> >
> > What do you understand by "locale support".
> >
> > Writing un
Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If linux is one of your platforms though, then you still have problems,
> since /bin/sh is bash on there, and not ksh93, and you'll still have
> feature, and behaviour differences to work around.
And on Linux, you have _real_ problems bacause of the fa
Shawn Walker wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 11:59 AM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>
>>> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
1) *NOT* POSIX compliant
>>> If you have problems with that, you may modify /etc/passwd
On Feb 6, 2008 12:16 PM, Joerg Schilling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > 2) Buggy
> > >
> > > What bugs?
> >
> > Take your pick from bugs.opensolaris.org.
> >
> > Notably, there are problems with:
> >
> > 1) certain terminals
> >
> > 2) locale suppor
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 2) Buggy
> >
> > What bugs?
>
> Take your pick from bugs.opensolaris.org.
>
> Notably, there are problems with:
>
> 1) certain terminals
>
> 2) locale support, etc.
Sorry, but unless you are able to explain problems, I ned to asume that you
don't k
On 2/6/08, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bruno Jargot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > I think we should congratulate the person who had the guts to change
> > > > /sbin/sh to ksh93 in Indiana. There is no point to turn Opensolaris
> > > > into the last stronghold of the Bourne
"Bruno Jargot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I think we should congratulate the person who had the guts to change
> > > /sbin/sh to ksh93 in Indiana. There is no point to turn Opensolaris
> > > into the last stronghold of the Bourne shell while everyone else moved
> > > to a POSIX shell
> >
> >
On 2/6/08, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bruno Jargot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > I think we should congratulate the person who had the guts to change
> > /sbin/sh to ksh93 in Indiana. There is no point to turn Opensolaris
> > into the last stronghold of the Bourne shell w
On Feb 6, 2008 11:39 AM, Joerg Schilling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > POSIX does _not_ deal with PATH names and thus does not say anything about
> > > /bin/sh.
> >
> > I know that. You were assuming that I cared that POSIX said whether
> > /bin/sh s
On Feb 6, 2008 11:59 AM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> 1) *NOT* POSIX compliant
> >>
> >
> > If you have problems with that, you may modify /etc/passwd
> >
> Since it seems that one group cares more about wha
On Feb 6, 2008 11:59 AM, Joerg Schilling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bruno Jargot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > I think we should congratulate the person who had the guts to change
> > /sbin/sh to ksh93 in Indiana. There is no point to turn Opensolaris
> > into the last stronghold of the
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 1) *NOT* POSIX compliant
>>
>
> If you have problems with that, you may modify /etc/passwd
>
Since it seems that one group cares more about what they end up with
when they login as, or su to root, and the other grou
"Bruno Jargot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think we should congratulate the person who had the guts to change
> /sbin/sh to ksh93 in Indiana. There is no point to turn Opensolaris
> into the last stronghold of the Bourne shell while everyone else moved
> to a POSIX shell
This is nothing to c
On 2/6/08, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 11:23 AM, Joerg Schilling
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 6, 2008 11:08 AM, Joerg Schilling
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > POSIX does _not_ deal with PATH names and thus does not say anything about
> > /bin/sh.
>
> I know that. You were assuming that I cared that POSIX said whether
> /bin/sh should be a POSIX shell.
>
> I don't.
>
> All I care about is that the default she
On Feb 6, 2008 11:23 AM, Joerg Schilling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 6, 2008 11:08 AM, Joerg Schilling
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ultimately, /sbin/sh is an unacceptable shell i
72 matches
Mail list logo
