Andrew McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Nov 3, 2005, at 7:48 AM, Knut Anders Hatlen wrote: > >> The ksh scripts work fine on Solaris (tested tar and zip). > > Great. (sort of :-) ) > >> I have found another issue with them, tough. When you just put the >> script directory in your path and type 'ij.ksh', most unices will use >> /bin/sh instead of ksh. Under Linux and Cygwin this is fine because >> /bin/sh actually is Bash, which supports all the ksh commands used in >> the scripts. Under Solaris and BSD /bin/sh is not Bash, and therefore >> the scripts fail. > > Wouldn't a #! be sufficient? I guess you never know for sure...
The problem with #! for ksh scripts is that ksh might be installed in different paths on different platforms. On Solaris it would be /bin/ksh, on FreeBSD /usr/local/bin/ksh, on NetBSD /usr/pkg/bin/ksh, on Debian /bin/pdksh. #!/bin/sh is portable, I think, but it's not ksh (if that's a problem). >> I'll file a JIRA issue on this and attach a patch. >> >> Sorry I didn't bring it up earlier. (The thing is, I have never >> actually used the scripts.) > > Can we agree that this is not a showstopper for 10.1.2.1, considering > that this was an issue for 10.1.1.0? Yes, it is absolutely not a showstopper. > I agree that it would be nice to > fix so that it works 'out-of-the-box' for everyone, but at some point > you need to make a cutoff for fixes, no matter how small. Personally, > I think that this is something that can wait for 10.1.3 and/or 10.2, > and there are other suggestions completely besides scripts (see > Lance's mail about using Ant). > > If there are no objections, I think we should target DERBY-667 and > DERBY-677 for 10.1.3.0/10.2.0.0 and continue forward with releasing > 10.1.2.1. Agreed. -- Knut Anders
