Mike Kupfer wrote: > > >>>>> "Roland" == Roland Mainz <roland.mainz at nrubsig.org> writes: > > Casper> Root's shell needs to be POSIX compliant because? > > Roland> I was thinking more about having a (near-) POSIX-conformant > Roland> shell around at startup time and single-user mode > > This is already available on most (all?) Linux distros, yes?
Yes, on Linux bash is used in "posix" mode and AFAIK on *BSD > >> And what is preventing these followon projects to move the library? > > Roland> It needs to be ARC'ed - again. Based on the current resistance > Roland> we will either get libshell in /lib now or simply forget such > Roland> projects completely because in a second/third/etc. attempt we > Roland> will face the same argumentation+resistance. > > Well, you'll get the same question, but I wouldn't take that as > "resistance". If the follow-on project truly needs the library in /, > you explain why it can't work with the library in /usr, and the ARC says > "oh, okay". The detail that libshell is being used should be an implementation detail and not something which needs to be explicitly ARC'ed. IMO most people who want to write a new project which has dependicies to the boot process would look at the issue, read this discussion and then would simply avoid the usage of libshell at all costs because it is restricted to /usr. Somehow this is really not what we wanted to archive - we wanted a shell which is feature-rich, (more or less) POSIX-conformant, user-friendly, i18n/l10n-capable and doesn't have any artificial restrictions on it's usage. Putting libshell in /usr/lib instead of /lib simply kills the last item and dramatically reduces the benefits of introducing ksh93/libshell in Solaris. ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
