Henk Langeveld wrote: [For the log: We now have an own mailinglist for the ksh93-integration project called [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Here's a little word from one who actually contributed a lot to > bugid 4113420 (I don't remember if I was the original author, > sun's bug db was something like a wiki, but without the diffs) Offtopic: Do you mean it has no history for changes ?! > I heartily support the inclusion of ksh93 into (Open)Solaris(-10,9,8) > as I've tried to get it included since roughly '97??? Yes... and I tried it in the 2001 timeframe... with a bitter outcome... ;-( > But as indicated by several on this list, due to the combination > of Sun's policy of not-breaking-existing-interfaces and the gradual > drift of Sun's /bin/ksh to what it is today, there is no way that > it can be replaced by ksh93. Even if the resources are there to > replace all the /bin/ksh scripts in the system with improved > versions, customers may have their own scripts depending on > the ill-defined behaviour of /bin/ksh as it is. What do you suggest to do instead ? Right now the non-standard- (treating ksh93 as the de-facto standard for ksh) behaviour of /usr/bin/ksh starts to hurt customers (ignoring the fact that there is only one active maintainer within Sun who has to deal with all /usr/bin/ksh bugs vs. ksh93 maintained by a giant community) more and more (ranging from simple script porting problems, issues with interoperability between flavours of Unix and problems due missing features) - what would you propose as intermediate and long-term solutions ? > "/bin/ksh" is indeed just that. It is not ksh88, it is the Sun /bin/ksh, > and is recently compatible with the traditional /bin/sh Yeah... Jörg Schilling said that already... actually /usr/bin/ksh is not fully compatible to anything... ;-( > Precisely because > of /bin/ksh's idiosyncracies, has it been split from /usr/xpg4/bin/sh > in Solaris (which used to be a link to ksh in xpg < 4). > > I do agree with Stefan (Parvu, another ksh93 comrade at Sun at the time) > that replacing /bin/sh with ksh93 would likely be a more viable project. > It would also push Solaris kicking and screaming into POSIX-compliance, Yes... that would be a very nice thing (excluding the "kicking&screaming" ... I really wish we could try to get the stuff done peachfully if possible... :-) ). > as far as the default shell goes. Yes... that may be a project _after_ ksh93 has been integrated... doing both things at the same time may even break more stuff. My first step would be to get ksh93 and libshell.so building, running and passing most of Sun's internal test suites (for example April said there is some trouble with widechar compilance (something which will quickly backfire on locales such as ja_JP.PCK)) - and once this task has been completed we have to debate our next steps... > Nevertheless, there are some extensions in ksh93 that are NOT mandated > by POSIX, and maybe should be restricted when running as "/bin/sh". Uhm... why ? And which features do you like to exclude ? ---- Bye, Roland P.S.: Setting "Reply-To:" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to keep the discussion in one mailinglist... -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;) _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
