Joerg Schilling wrote: > Roland Mainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > John Plocher wrote: > > > Roland Mainz wrote: > > > > Michael Shapiro wrote: > > > ... lots ... > > > > > > I just don't see the "why" here. > > > > > > Sure, one /could/ do all sorts of spiffy things at build time iff one > > > could just use ksh93. > > > > > > But, I don't see anything in the ON tree today that /requires/ the use > > > of ksh93. > > > > Erm, the problem we have is that all new Makefiles in the > > ksh93-integration prototype004 tree use SHELL=/bin/ksh to simplify some > > If you take your ideas of being as POSIX compliant as possible, you should > not put SHELL=/bin/ksh into a Makefile as it makes the makefile non-portable.
What else would you suggest ? If we would (theoretically) want the ultimate "portabilty" we would have to resurrect the "Thomson shell" (it even predates the original Bourne shell) and use that for everything (I don't even try to imagine the horror... =:-) ). When I say "portable" I think about "portable" with POSIX as basis with some extensions which includes something to set a POSIX-like shell. In theory SHELL=/usr/xpg4/bin/sh would be the correct choice in this case, right ? ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;) _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
