On 1/10/06, Richard Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Felix Schulte wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > And you do not have to "think through" - somewhere one or more of your
> > engineers have Roland Mainz's ksh88-to-ksh93 migration plan which is
> > pretty much straightforward and handled most of the issue
Markus Gyger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/14/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Right now I compile ksh93 from at&t for schillix, but my compiled
> > version refuses to call the path_pfexec function.
> >
> > Although SHOPT_PFSH is defined and the symbol(getexecuser) can be
On 1/14/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right now I compile ksh93 from at&t for schillix, but my compiled
> version refuses to call the path_pfexec function.
>
> Although SHOPT_PFSH is defined and the symbol(getexecuser) can be found in the
> compiled binary.
>
> Another problem
Hi Markus,
* Markus Gyger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060114 11:41]:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Then, of course, we need to make "pfksh93" as well or perhaps defined
> > a better mechanism which allows for pfanysh without any binary changes
> > to a shell.
>
> I did contribute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Then, of course, we need to make "pfksh93" as well or perhaps defined
> a better mechanism which allows for pfanysh without any binary changes
> to a shell.
I did contribute some code to the official AT&T OS version in 2004,
so it should work in most
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brendan Gregg wrote:
How about the dtksh source be bundeled with OpenSolaris, so that all the
dtksh fans can pitch in and fix a few of those alpha bugs. :-)
(assuming I'm not the only dtksh fan).
dtksh is part of the CDE so
Mac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure. One possible option is to ship /bin/ksh93 in addition
> to /bin/ksh (for ksh88). However, it's important that Sun also
> ships the source code of ksh93 including its changes related to
> wordexp() interface. That way, we don't have to hack libc
> to always
Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brendan Gregg wrote:
> > How about the dtksh source be bundeled with OpenSolaris, so that all the
> > dtksh fans can pitch in and fix a few of those alpha bugs. :-)
> > (assuming I'm not the only dtksh fan).
>
> dtksh is part of the CDE sources, for wh
Felix Schulte writes:
> Did you get Ireks point that Solaris is FAR behind other operating systems?
Yep. I could hardly have missed it.
Also, it isn't as though I haven't and don't use other operating
systems, or that I'm somehow ignorant of what's available.
> login shell between various syste
Hello Felix,
Tuesday, January 10, 2006, 12:38:40 AM, you wrote:
FS> One example from our university - a real world problem we have experienced:
FS> Think about a university which wants to use /usr/bin/ksh as uniform
FS> login shell between various systems like Solaris, Linux, AIX - this
FS> has b
On 1/9/06, Felix Schulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The idea of a /usr/bin/ksh93 is very bad as it does not solve theissue with interoperability between Unix and Linux OSes - remember myexample with using ksh as login shell on Solaris vs AI vs Linux.I think the Wikipedia article about the Korn Shel
> "Felix" == Felix Schulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mike> The information I have (which is a few weeks old) is that there
Mike> are plans to introduce /usr/bin/ksh93 in the next few months.
Felix> Ohhh... same was said for Solaris 9. Nothing happened since
Felix> then. I have long lost my
Felix Schulte wrote:
It's unlikely to happen as dtksh is part of CDE and Sun does not own
CDE nor are they willing to opensource it.
Sun is a co-owner of CDE, along with a number of other companies, and has
to respect the various agreements signed that allowed CDE joint development
to happen.
Felix Schulte wrote:
[snip]
And you do not have to "think through" - somewhere one or more of your
engineers have Roland Mainz's ksh88-to-ksh93 migration plan which is
pretty much straightforward and handled most of the issues.
However, the rest of us on this alias don't. Perhaps you could
Felix Schulte wrote:
James... several YEARS ago someone from our university
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) already created a quite
painless ksh88-to-ksh93 migration plan (including a detailed list of
issues which need to be solved) for Solaris and send the proposal to
Sun, however Sun did not had any intere
On 1/9/06, Mac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure. One possible option is to ship /bin/ksh93 in addition
> to /bin/ksh (for ksh88).
No... thanks. Please read the comment about home dirs shared via
NFS/AFS between multiple OSes such as Solaris, Linux and AIX.
/bin/ksh93 does not exist on any other O
On 1/9/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm worried not about what Sun ships as part of the OS
> (though I'm not too thrilled about regression testing patchadd/patchrm)
> but about products and home grown scripts in the field.
The products and home grown scripts already have to de
On 1/9/06, Mike Kupfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Felix" == Felix Schulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Felix> Can someone please update
> Felix> http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4113420
> Felix> ?
> Felix> 1. The bug should be closed as WONTFIX as Sun seems to
On 1/9/06, Brendan Gregg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> G'Day Folks,
>
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Felix Schulte wrote:
> [...]
> > 3. /usr/dt/bin/dtksh should not be listed as workaround - this version
> > of ksh93 is based on a alpha version of the Korn shell - which should
> > have never been shipped w
* Felix Schulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-09 15:39]:
> On 1/9/06, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But someone needs to do the work of figuring out what that breakage
> > is, whom it would affect, how, and documenting all of that as a
> > proposed project.
>
> James... several YEARS
On 1/9/06, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > >On 1/9/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> There are many ways format, but from Sun's perspective none include
> > >> replacing ksh with ksh93.
> > >
> > >Is this the OFFICIAL position of Sun Mi
James Carlson wrote:
Mac writes:
To make matters worse, inetd-related services require Sun's
/bin/ksh to work because libc's wordexp() has intimate
relationship with Sun's ksh.
Intimate, to be sure, but I think it might actually be 'wrong' in some
respects. For those who have appropriate ac
Mac writes:
> To make matters worse, inetd-related services require Sun's
> /bin/ksh to work because libc's wordexp() has intimate
> relationship with Sun's ksh.
Intimate, to be sure, but I think it might actually be 'wrong' in some
respects. For those who have appropriate access (and apologies t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Those scripts, aren't they generally run with /bin/sh and not
ksh? Or did you change them to use "ksh"?
Nothing's changed, but those which happen to use ksh seem to
be okay -- they include (albeit non-packaging related) the
scripts in /boot/solaris/bin/.
I'm worried
>Just FYI, NexentaOS uses ksh93 for /bin/ksh and we haven't
>seen any breakages so far; this includes executing the class
>action (and related) scripts of SUNW-converted packages.
>Note that we build things (from the ground up) using packaging
>infrastructure (as opposed to using bfu archives or c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we can be convinced that there is no breakage when moving from
Solaris ksh to ksh93 or if you can devise a way in which this would
be the case, then there are certainly options.
Just FYI, NexentaOS uses ksh93 for /bin/ksh and we haven't
seen any breakages so far; th
>Various people, though, may have positions. I agree with Casper that
>the best way forward is to develop a transition that breaks nothing
>that anyone would ever notice. At least with my ARC hat on, I'd be
>more than willing to listen to arguments that one or another bit of
>breakage is "not im
>Oh... and introduce another Solaris-ism?
>AFAIK all Unix korn shell versions are ksh93-based *EXCEPT* the
>/usr/bin/ksh delivered with Solaris. You upgraded awk to nawk - which
>is slightly incompatible to the old awk version and perl was updated,
>too. Even /usr/bin/java is not 100% compatible t
> "Felix" == Felix Schulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Felix> Can someone please update
Felix> http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4113420
Felix> ?
Felix> 1. The bug should be closed as WONTFIX as Sun seems to have lost
Felix> interest in upgrading /usr/bin/ksh to ksh93
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >On 1/9/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> There are many ways format, but from Sun's perspective none include
> >> replacing ksh with ksh93.
> >
> >Is this the OFFICIAL position of Sun Microsystems?
>
> Why do you think I have an "official" position
Brendan Gregg wrote:
How about the dtksh source be bundeled with OpenSolaris, so that all the
dtksh fans can pitch in and fix a few of those alpha bugs. :-)
(assuming I'm not the only dtksh fan).
dtksh is part of the CDE sources, for which there are no plans to release
at this time unfortunatel
G'Day Folks,
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Felix Schulte wrote:
[...]
> 3. /usr/dt/bin/dtksh should not be listed as workaround - this version
> of ksh93 is based on a alpha version of the Korn shell - which should
> have never been shipped with a production OS due too many bugs and
> problems according to
>On 1/9/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There are many ways format, but from Sun's perspective none include
>> replacing ksh with ksh93.
>
>Is this the OFFICIAL position of Sun Microsystems?
Why do you think I have an "official" position of any kind?
There are always exceptio
On 1/9/06, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "I. Szczesniak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Sun Solaris is changed to use ksh93 for /bin/ksh the same way
> as other OpenSolaris distributions do caused by the fact that
> there is no ksh88 compliant ksh source.
Speak
"I. Szczesniak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/9/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There are many ways format, but from Sun's perspective none include
> > replacing ksh with ksh93.
>
> Is this the OFFICIAL position of Sun Microsystems?
This has been discussed earlier
As
On 1/9/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are many ways format, but from Sun's perspective none include
> replacing ksh with ksh93.
Is this the OFFICIAL position of Sun Microsystems?
Irek
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
openso
>/usr/bin/ksh being a bastard version of ksh88 adds a *SIGNIFICANT*
>**BURDEN* for people who develop and ship software. Every shell script
>needs to be back ported to ksh88 to support Solaris. And I personally
>think this cannot be tolerated anymore. It costs immense manpower just
>to support Su
On 1/9/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Can someone please update
> >http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4113420 ?
> >1. The bug should be closed as WONTFIX as Sun seems to have lost
> >interest in upgrading /usr/bin/ksh to ksh93
>
> We cannot upgrade /bi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Replacing /usr/bin/ksh is just not an option; the list of known
> >> incompatibilities stretches over many pages.
> >
> >Looks like you did forget that there is no ksh88 compliant /usr/bin/ksh.
>
> No; that's not what I said.
>
> I said that /bin/ksh is not compatible
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Why not integrate the current Korn shell as /usr/sbin/ksh93?
>>
>>
>> Replacing /usr/bin/ksh is just not an option; the list of known
>> incompatibilities stretches over many pages.
>
>Looks like you did forget that there is no ksh88 compliant /usr/bin/ksh.
No; that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why not integrate the current Korn shell as /usr/sbin/ksh93?
>
>
> Replacing /usr/bin/ksh is just not an option; the list of known
> incompatibilities stretches over many pages.
Looks like you did forget that there is no ksh88 compliant /usr/bin/ksh.
If Sun does not ad
>Can someone please update
>http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4113420 ?
>1. The bug should be closed as WONTFIX as Sun seems to have lost
>interest in upgrading /usr/bin/ksh to ksh93
We cannot upgrade /bin/ksh because ksh93 is *not* compatible with
ksh88.
>2. If no one o
Can someone please update
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4113420 ?
1. The bug should be closed as WONTFIX as Sun seems to have lost
interest in upgrading /usr/bin/ksh to ksh93
2. If no one objects I am going to file a EOL request to get
/usr/bin/ksh removed in future Sol
43 matches
Mail list logo
