On Wed 20 Sep 2006 at 03:20PM, Dan Price wrote:
> 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
Please excuse me for being a turkey: there is no /sbin/ksh. I'm
clearly losing my mind.
-dp
--
Daniel Price - Solaris Kernel Engineering - dp at eng.sun.com - blogs.sun.com/dp
