Martin Schaffstall wrote:
>> Because we need one shell and /sbin/sh suffices for now.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Sounds you like being a little sadist and punish users with /sbin/sh.
> Casper, could you elaborate why Sun is not willing to address the
> problems with /sbin/sh and isn't even willing to support an
> alternative, pls?
Well I'm not Casper but here is my take on this.
*This* ARC case is just about adding ksh93 under that basename, it is
*NOT* addressing the replacement of the current /usr/bin/ksh or the
/usr/xpg4/bin/ksh (but does imply that it will happen at some time in
the future). When the project team brings that case forward then is the
time to talk about /sbin/sh being the ksh93 code (and I hope the project
team will actually propose that). At this time lets not burden the
project team with more work they have enough to do.
--
Darren J Moffat
