On 9/21/06, James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote: > Josh Hurst writes: > > I have asked for Roland for ksh93 in /sbin over and over again because > > /sbin/sh is a calamity. It lacks simple features like POSIX > > conformance and even the basic features of shells available in other > > operating systems are missing in this shell. While this project > > currently does not aim at replacing /sbin/sh it would be nice to > > provide an alternative. > > Why is typing /sbin/ksh93 substantially simpler than typing /bin/ksh93 > to get the same functionality? > > It's the lack of an important usage case -- one that can't be handled > in any reasonable way with /usr/bin/ksh93 -- that makes me ask why > this needs to be done right now. We don't need /usr/bin/ksh93 either - there is no important usage case. We don't need libshell.so.1 either - there is no important usage case. We don't need libcmd.so.1 either - there is no important usage case. We don't need libdll.so.1 either - there is no important usage case. We don't need libast.so.1 either - there is no important usage case.
This argumentation can be extended over the whole project. As long as /usr/bin/ksh exists in Solaris ksh93 could always be declared redundant. My question is: What do we want? What *may* be useful in the future? Who may be the future users of ksh93 and the libraries? -- Josh
