Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote: >> 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 don't think that's a strong enough reason: > > - you can already use any shell as root shell; is /usr isn't > mounted /sbin/sh is used instead. > > By this reasoning, we should add bash/zsh/tcsh/csh there too. > > If you have a separate /usr, well, you pretty much deserve the > barebones system you get.
... and when we have ZFS boot it is very unlikely that you would be able to have a / and /usr out of the same pool where / is available but /usr is not. IMO /usr as a separate file system is a dead concept and is no longer relevant, however the / /usr packaging split is not (it is an important distinction). -- Darren J Moffat
