> On 28/11/2007, Richard L. Hamilton > <rlhamil at smart.net> wrote: > > On Nov 8, 2007 2:21 PM, Josh Hurst wrote: > > > 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/utilitie > s/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. > > > > It only makes sense to make ksh93 the replacement for > /bin/sh as ksh93 > has already been tested to be /sbin/sh I believe. > Until someone goes > through all of the hard work that Roland already has > for ksh93, I > don't see the point of using any other shell.
If Indiana is already using something other than divergently aged Bourne shell as /bin/sh yes, I agree ksh93 would be way better than (say) bash, and better to switch to ksh93 _now_ while still in a "preview" release. Otherwise, I think there should at least be more thought given to it first. Maybe I'm mistaken (happens sometimes), but ISTR that Josh has previously wanted everything including SXCE/SXDE/supported Solaris to switch /bin/sh from Bourne to ksh93 ASAP. Indiana...whatever, although if it hopes to be a model for Solaris 10+n (n>=1, probably >=2), it ought to keep potential incompatibilities down to where they're very clearly far more opportunities than problems, and still thoroughly document them. But I would hope and expect that the more traditional Sun distros would avoid _all_ incompatibilities without extensive testing, documentation, migration aids, etc first being done. Apparently Indiana is all about the expectations of non-Solaris (mostly Linux) users, as a way to grow the base. Whatever. Some part of the existing base (and probably a larger part of the _paying_ existing base) just want to keep doing what they've been doing, give or take a few new features, out until the heat-death of the universe who knows how many billion years from now (and boy won't that be fun one second past Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 GMT 2038, or earlier, if they fool with future dates converted at some point to 32-bit time_t). This message posted from opensolaris.org
