Josh Hurst writes: > > 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.
Nonsense. Many people (myself included) want to have /usr/bin/ksh93. > 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. These are all needed for ksh93. > This argumentation can be extended over the whole project. As long as > /usr/bin/ksh exists in Solaris ksh93 could always be declared > redundant. Sorry, but that clearly misses the point. > 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? No. The one question being addressed in this thread is whether ksh93 is really needed in the root file system, rather than under /usr where all other shells are placed. That's the only question. If you have information that indicates why having ksh93 is needed in the root file system, please share. -- James Carlson, KISS Network <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
