>On 3/7/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >No it is not. You're wrong. Put /usr/bin/ksh into a SMF script and it >> >will not be executed. >> >> Have you actually tried this? > >Yes. It will not work.
I just tried it and it works just fine as I expected. The source code also strongly suggests it does. (The fact that it calls "sh -c" does not mean that the script starting with #!/bin/ksh will be fed to the shell; it will use /bin/ksh instead) >> Those are, as before, strictly fed to /bin/sh > >Why? Why can't you use /usr/bin/ksh or /usr/xpg4/bin/sh as interpreter >for all the scripts. It's for backward compatibility reasons so it works in the most compatible way. It's trivial to write a script which behaves differently under /bin/sh than under /bin/ksh. Also, these scripts are not really important for old development; if you develop on /etc/init.d script so you can sure code between older releases and S10+, you will need to use /bin/sh anyway. Using xpg4 sh will not help you to attain portability. >I am talking about SMF scripts and /etc/init.d scripts. True for the latter, not for the former. >> >> >No, I blame Solaris for not honoring the POSIX standard. >> >> It does confirm to POSIX; > >Is there any certification? Yes. >> it's just that you don't undersand the >> finesses of POSIX (and the freedoms) >> >> (POSIX says there needs to be a POSIX shell; not where it is) > >Is there any other operating system which uses this finesses/freedom >as justification to make /bin/sh a standard-violating shell? A program which is not referenced by the standard cannot be a standard violating program. Casper _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
