On Wed 20 Sep 2006 at 11:44PM, Roland Mainz wrote:
> Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> >
> > 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'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.
>
> AFAIK there isn't opne strong justification but lots of smaller ones:
In casual conversation, Stephen Hahn mentioned what is to me a more
architecturally compelling reason to have this in /sbin: we're going to
need to have a transition period where we clean up all of the scripts
delivered into the product by OS/Net (and by other consolidations) which
don't work right in ksh93 if we're ever going to have ksh93 be the default
version of ksh.
This will benefit OpenSolaris distros as well, presumably. If any of
those scripts currently use /sbin/ksh, then it'll be a lot easier to
verify the transition if we can set them to use /sbin/ksh93, and
this provides (to me) a more persuasive rationale about "why ksh93
and not {bash|zsh|tcsh}" than their POSIX-ness.
Maybe such scripts don't exist; if they do, that would be a good
reason to have /sbin/ksh93.
-dp
--
Daniel Price - Solaris Kernel Engineering - dp at eng.sun.com - blogs.sun.com/dp
