On 6/23/09, James Carlson <carlsonj at workingcode.com> wrote: > Cedric Blancher writes: > > On 21/06/2009, James Carlson <carlsonj at workingcode.com> wrote: > > > > If anything, moving bits out of *both* SUNWesu and SUNWcsu and into a > > > clearer-headed "SUNWksh93" (or some such) would make more sense. > > > > Which sense does it make to have a separate package which makes a > > machine unbootable if you pkgrm it? > > > First of all, I'd dispute the "unbootable" assertion. It might well > be perfectly reasonable for someone creating an appliance out of > OpenSolaris software to create a system that doesn't have ksh93. > Perhaps such a system only has bash!
Arguably a (Linux) appliance and embedded system would use the shell implementation from busybox.net instead of bash. bash uses too much memory for hardware with 16 or 32MB. This is the reason why we choose the same design principles for the the Opensolaris version of busybox, it reduces memory usage, disk footprint and accelerates performance. Irek
