> DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-t
ype:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
b=F6iQVYMz1f9B+jN0/knrQ4oDTuefOmoiTScgL7Xk+MWMwicTnoi6Ts/fXKzfj5qAXvtikWeNy8YkEl
RKKUYwvBEbVlvcUYSlVNJoUQT2ASP8LJOJu05jB678/o4xsGCrcgO57IYEtveTDxq6prlEkXolBgj8AY
HR8Lzj9//uNeE=
> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:46:42 +0200
> From: "I. Szczesniak" <iszczesniak at gmail.com>
> 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] Re: Patch to introduce "oksh" to
OS/Net
> Cc: roland.mainz at nrubsig.org, james.d.carlson at sun.com
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by jurassic.eng.sun.com
> id
k3KFkjBf826191
>
> On 4/18/06, April Chin <April.Chin at eng.sun.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 05:03:06 +0200
> > > From: Roland Mainz <roland.mainz at nrubsig.org>
> > > X-Accept-Language: en
> > > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > > To: ksh93-integration-discuss <ksh93-integration-discuss at
> > > opensolaris.org>
> > > CC: April Chin <April.Chin at eng.sun.com>
> > > Subject: Patch to introduce "oksh" to OS/Net
> > > X-ID: Gt0vNGZc8eyT3BLbugCm8aBjI5fLV5YqPPxVkI4bJMrA5tp-JND204 at
> > > t-dialin.net
> > > X-TOI-MSGID: 7b352edc-1d5e-45f7-971c-d6b790782385
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > ----
> > >
> > > Attached is a small patch which introduces "oksh" to OS/Net.
> > >
> > > The patch adds "oksh", "roksh" and "pfoksh" to the package database (as
> > > hard link to /usr/bin/ksh), modifies getusershell.c to recognise these
> > > new shell names as login shells by default (and adds "nksh" as another
> > > option) and modifies wordexp.c to use "oksh" (this last item is a
> > > blocker which prevents the OpenSolaris-based distributions to ship ksh93
> > > as /usr/bin/ksh right now (I have another patch for fixing the
> > > libc/wordexp() dependicy on the "old ksh" - but that requires
> > > libast/libshell to be present in the system (e.g. is a ToDo item once
> > > libast/libshell are present))).
> > >
> > > The only remaining item missing in the patch is to adjust the old
> > > Solaris ksh to recohnizse "roksh" the same was as "rksh" (e.g.
> > > restricted korn shell mode) and "pfoksh" the same as "pfksh" (profile
> > > mode korn shell).
> > > Unfortunately I cannot do it myself since the sources for the "old korn
> > > shell" are not available... ;-(
> > >
> > > April: Do you have time to act as sponsor for this patch, please ?
> > >
> > > ----
> > >
> > > Bye,
> > > Roland
> > >
> > > --
> > > __ . . __
> > > (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org
> > > \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
> > > /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090
> > > (;O/ \/ \O;)
> >
> > Hi Roland,
> >
> > I've been out since Apr 10th and just got back today, so I'm still
> > catching up on some of the email...
> >
> > A suggestion from a PSARC member was to keep /bin/ksh (Solaris's
> > ksh) as is, until it is replaced by ksh93, rather than introducing
> > these new obscure names for Solaris's ksh. Then when ksh93 becomes
/bin/ksh,
> > to move Solaris's ksh to a separate package (not part of the main package
> > clusters).
>
> This is a suspicious suggestion. First PSARC suggested a transition
> period and now they want a 'all or nothing' solution? Is PSARC
> actually WILLING to allow the integration of ksh93 as /bin/ksh?
This is my fault--my recollection of the original suggestion was fuzzy. :-(
What was actually said was that we should get rid of the old ksh,
but if we *really* had to keep it, it should be segregated into
another package--unfortunately, I focussed on the idea of segregating
old ksh into another package. Please see James Carlson's follow-up
comments/correction.
The transition period comment was mine, not from PSARC.
>
> >
> > However, I think we still need to name Solaris's ksh something unique
> > from /bin/ksh (or at least move it to another directory), even if it
> > is moved to another package. Otherwise, ksh93 and the old Solaris ksh
> > cannot co-exist if that is desired while users are transitioning,
> > and would cause patching and upgrading problems. So creating
> > /bin/oksh and the other links is still necessary.
> >
> > Questions:
> > - Do we need any links for /usr/xpg4/bin/sh? Once we've transitioned
> > to a standard-compliant ksh93, will there be any need for the old version
> > of the standard-compliant shell?
> >
> > - Is it necessary to change wordexp() to use /usr/bin/oksh instead of
> > /usr/bin/ksh? Once ksh93 becomes /usr/bin/ksh, oksh may not be
> > installed into the Core Solaris cluster (see suggestion above), but
> > we could look at changing wordexp() to dlopen() of libshell.so or some
other
> > method which uses ksh93.
> >
> > I can sponsor the change and make the necessary changes to the closed
> > ksh source for you. Introducing the new links would likely be a
> > "fast-track" (simple) case for PSARC.
> > Roland, I'll discuss more details offline.
> >
> > Do you still have objections to introducing ksh93 as /bin/ksh93 rather
> > than nksh? IBM AIX 5L uses /usr/bin/ksh93
>
> /bin/ksh is ksh93 in AIX5L depending on which package is installed.
> Wikipedia has some comments on that from IBM France.
I was basing this on info on ibm.com; I have never installed AIX.
Docs on AIX 5L version 5.2 (2004) mention that /usr/bin/ksh is ksh88 and
/usr/bin/ksh93 is ksh93.
Docs on AIX 5L version 5.3 (2005) mention enhancements to "ksh and ksh93",
as separate entities, so I assume they are still separate binaries.
Perhaps ksh93 is /usr/bin/ksh in the next release after 5.3?
April
>
> >, so ksh93 would be a more
> > descriptive and portable name, since no other OS uses nksh as far as
> > I know.
>
> Pls remember that nksh was selected to make clear there is a new
> version of ksh and that there will be an update of /bin/ksh soon.
>
> Irek
>
