> On Nov 8, 2007 7:08 PM, Al Hopper > <al at logical-approach.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > > > On 08/11/2007, Al Hopper > <al at logical-approach.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> Has anyone looked into what it would take to > make an indiana > > >> compatible pkg (ref http://pkg.opensolaris.org) > for the ksh93 shell? > > >> Is anyone working on this? > > > > > > ksh93 is already integrated into ON; so Indiana > already has it too. > > > > > > Are you talking about getting packages for the > newest versions going? > > > > Yes. I'm interested in exploring how the packaging > system would work > > in terms of installing and updating a non-trivial > application and I > > thought that ksh93 would be a good starting point. > > Don't forget to update /bin/sh to ksh93 if you > release an update package. > > Josh
Why? /bin/sh doesn't need to be POSIX or anything other than 100.00% backwards compatible. All that has to be true for POSIX is that the sh found on the PATH returned by getconf PATH is POSIX compliant. AFAIK, POSIX doesn't even require #! support at all, and if it exists, the sh man page at http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/sh.html recommends using a script to edit scripts that need the POSIX shell name in them at install time. Assuming anything else regarding how the POSIX compliant shell may be found, or expecting that you ought to be able to, is an error. "You are in error. You are a biological unit. You are imperfect." -- Nomad This message posted from opensolaris.org
