> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 08:32:07 -1000 (HST)
> From: Joseph Kowalski <Joseph.Kowalski at eng.sun.com>
> Subject: Re: Korn Shell 93 Integration [PSARC-EXT/2006/550 Timeout:
09/27/2006]
> To: PSARC-EXT at sac.sfbay.sun.com, don.cragun at sun.com
> Cc: April.Chin at eng.sun.com, ksh93-integration-discuss at opensolaris.org,
roland.mainz at nrubsig.org
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-MD5: PtcfOtDUrTE/dLldF5Pl9A==
>
>
> Whoot, Whoot! Its about time (even if this isn't currently called ksh).
>
> One minor comment:
>
> /sbin/ksh93 32-bit korn shell (2nd copy)
> /sbin/pfksh93 hard link to /sbin/ksh93
> /sbin/rksh93 hard link to /sbin/ksh93
>
> Do we need these any more than /sbin/bash, /sbin/zsh, ... ?
I don't know that I can argue for ksh93 versus any other shell,
but adding /sbin/ksh93 at least gives us one modern, more feature-rich
alternative to the bourne shell (/sbin/sh), for use as the root shell,
in JumpStart scripts, or in single-user mode, when dealing with filesystem
problems.
I'm sure Roland will be able to elaborate more on this.
April
>
> I'd rather not get into shell wars (my favorite shell is better than your
> favorite shell becasue I'm on root).
>
> I'd like to see a fairly strong justification for these or have them removed
> from the proposal.
>
> - thanks,
>
> - jek3
>
