>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.
There is no /sbin/ksh. If the need for /sbin/ksh93 follows from
the existance of /sbin/ksh then clearly this is not the case.
Is the intention to replace /sbin/sh with ksh93?
Casper
