Stefan Parvu wrote:
> Uaau, I see we have now a dedicated ksh93 migration forum:
> http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/forum.jspa?forumID=103
>
> I hope folks will agree and get this fixed somehow.
> stefan
This project has the goal to integrate ksh93 into (Open-)Solaris
including the update of /bin/
Stefan Parvu wrote:
> We should think to have /bin/sh as ksh93. It is elegant
> and simple to do. Are there any objections why /bin/sh
> cannot be a ksh93 ?
This is unlikely to happen in the forseeable future. It's already
difficult enougth to convince Sun to switch /bin/ksh from ksh88 to ksh93
(
"Felix Schulte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, since it's trivial to construct a script which works
> > differently under ksh than under sh, I'd say no.
> Solaris may choose this way - but Opensolaris can choose another...
Looks like you confuse things:
Solaris is a distribution
OpenSolari
Uaau, I see we have now a dedicated ksh93 migration forum:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/forum.jspa?forumID=103
I hope folks will agree and get this fixed somehow.
stefan
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 05:48:24PM +0200, Felix Schulte wrote:
> Solaris may choose this way - but Opensolaris can choose another...
No. OpenSolaris refers to the underlying technology base, which will
remain self-compatible and architecturally sound. Distribution
vendors are free to discard an
> I think we'd love to be able to make that change but
> I don't think we can.
Why can't we do that ? Every sh script should work ok
in ksh93. Isn't it ?
Then we don't have so many other choices... we could
deliver then something like /usr/ksh93 as we do with
Perl5 -> /usr/perl5
Im wonder w
Felix Schulte wrote:
On 3/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think we'd love to be able to make that change but
I don't think we can.
Why can't we do that ? Every sh script should work ok
in ksh93. Isn't it ?
Well, since it's trivial to construct a script which works
differe
On 3/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >> I think we'd love to be able to make that change but
> >> I don't think we can.
> >
> >Why can't we do that ? Every sh script should work ok
> >in ksh93. Isn't it ?
>
> Well, since it's trivial to construct a script which works
> d
>
>> I think we'd love to be able to make that change but
>> I don't think we can.
>
>Why can't we do that ? Every sh script should work ok
>in ksh93. Isn't it ?
Well, since it's trivial to construct a script which works
differently under ksh than under sh, I'd say no.
Casper
>We should think to have /bin/sh as ksh93. It is elegant and simple to do. Are
>there any objections
why /bin/sh cannot be a ksh93 ?
>
>On other note: Im wonder what would happen with kstat(1M) when Perl6 would be
>out. I bet Perl5 wou
ld stay as it is somewhere around and Perl6 might be instal
Hi,
We should think to have /bin/sh as ksh93. It is elegant and simple to do. Are
there any objections why /bin/sh cannot be a ksh93 ?
On other note: Im wonder what would happen with kstat(1M) when Perl6 would be
out. I bet Perl5 would stay as it is somewhere around and Perl6 might be
installe
11 matches
Mail list logo
