Martin Schaffstall wrote: > On 9/21/06, Casper.Dik at sun.com <Casper.Dik at sun.com> wrote: >> >> >> >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? >> >> The current ARC case is about ksh93 integration; it is not about >> replacing /sbin/sh with ksh93 or changing root's default shell. >> >> In the context of the ARC case, your question does not make sense. > > No, it makes sense in the context of this ARC case. /sbin/ksh93 would > be an alternative for boot scripts. /sbin/sh is a pain in the ass and > I am wondering why an alternative is not even considered
They *YOU* should convince the *project team* that they should add this to the scope of *this* project. There are ARC members who have already said they don't see it necessary for *this* case and it is better addressed in the future. I don't see that anyone has said never, it is more that we are trying to *help* get ksh93 into OpenSolaris and Solaris as soon as possible - and that often means keeping the scope smaller that some people might like. -- Darren J Moffat
