On 4/24/06, James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote: > Roland Mainz writes: > > > I don't believe that we really need to keep around a museum piece like > > > this. /bin/oksh would be just a relic, entirely superseded by ksh93 > > > installed as /bin/ksh. For what reason would anyone want to reminisce > > > with the old ksh implementation? > > > > As described in the other postings: We think this is needed as a "safety > > net". > > In that case, I think the materials presented for ARC review should > describe this issue in a great amount of detail. Introducing such a > thing is non-trivial.
Where is the ARC case for the bash2 to bash3 upgrade? This could be used as a template for the requested document as bash3 is not fully downward compatible to bash2 either. Irek
