> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:13:09 +0200
> From: Henk Langeveld <hlangeveld at mailworks.org>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060910
SeaMonkey/1.0.5
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: April Chin <April.Chin at eng.sun.com>, Korn Shell 93
> integration/migration
project discussion <ksh93-integration-discuss at opensolaris.org>
> Subject: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Proposal: Migrating /bin/sh to
ksh93before /bin/ksh
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner
>
> April Chin wrote:
> >
> ...
> >
> > The compatibility problems with existing customer sh scripts
> > and sh scripts in the system were considered too risky.
> >
> > At this point, we are again considering /bin/sh replacement with ksh93,
> > but as Roland says, we are taking it a step at a time, starting with
> > replacing /bin/ksh first.
>
> > I believe the incompatibilities between Bourne
> > shell and ksh93 may be greater than those between ksh88 (or rather,
> > Solaris's version of ksh88, /bin/ksh) and ksh93, which could make
> > the /bin/sh migration more difficult.
>
> Actually, I've had reasonable experience with migrating scripts from
> /bin/sh and /bin/ksh to ksh93 and encountered most of the problems with
> the latter conversion. /bin/sh just does not have as many features, and
> most are available in ksh93.
>
> Most /bin/sh constructs work fine in ksh93. The most annoying issue
> in my experience is the bsd/sv controversy around echo -n "..." and
> echo "...\c". In ksh* this became print -n "...", following the advise
> to never change an interface without changing the name.
>
> Cheers,
> Henk
>
Henk,
Thanks for this info... we need to evaluate this more carefully.
After ksh93 integrates we'll have to take a closer look at the shell
compatibility issues.
Thanks,
April
