Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote: > >> I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't > >> have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later > > > > If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different, > > then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not. > > What other choice is there when the current ksh is a closed binary? > Will Sun be building the closed binaries for PPC?
It would be not very wise to do that. Basically there is AFAIK only one engineer left who maintains the old ksh at Sun - which means she would have to do all the porting work, together with the usual maintaince, other shells and ksh93. And AFAIK ksh88i predates the PowerPC architecture so getting it ported will not be an easy task (unless someone find the ancient Solaris 2.5.1/PPC sources and updates them - which is likely a similar complex task than porting it again). ksh93 is much easier to handle for Solaris/PowerPC - you just generate the headers from the AST build, move them into OS/Net and you are done with that work. ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
