"James C. McPherson" <James.McPherson at Sun.COM> writes: > Richard Lowe wrote: >> "James C. McPherson" <James.McPherson at Sun.COM> writes: > ... >>> these should have a 2008 copyright date: >>> >>> usr/src/tools/onbld/Checks/Cddl.py >>> usr/src/tools/onbld/Checks/CStyle.py >>> usr/src/tools/onbld/Checks/Comments.py >>> usr/src/tools/onbld/Checks/Copyright.py >>> usr/src/tools/onbld/Checks/DbLookups.py >>> usr/src/tools/onbld/Checks/HdrChk.py >>> usr/src/tools/onbld/Checks/Keywords.py >>> usr/src/tools/onbld/Checks/Makefile >>> usr/src/tools/onbld/Checks/Rti.py >>> usr/src/tools/onbld/Checks/__init__.py >>> usr/src/tools/onbld/Makefile >>> usr/src/tools/onbld/Scm/__init__.py >>> usr/src/tools/onbld/__init__.py >>> usr/src/tools/onbld/hgext/Makefile >>> usr/src/tools/onbld/hgext/__init__.py >>> usr/src/tools/scripts/cddlchk.1 >>> usr/src/tools/scripts/cddlchk.py >>> usr/src/tools/scripts/copyrightchk.py >>> usr/src/tools/scripts/cstyle.pl >>> usr/src/tools/scripts/hdrchk.1 >>> usr/src/tools/scripts/hdrchk.py >>> usr/src/tools/scripts/jstyle.pl >>> usr/src/tools/scripts/rtichk.py >>> usr/src/tools/scripts/webrev.1 >> >> I think someone disagreed with that? > ... > > I'm just pointing it out. I would expect to see a 2008 Copyright > date in those files. > >>>Just for laughs, have you tried running usr/src/tools/scripts/flg.flp.sh >>>using ksh93 rather than /bin/ksh ? >> We'd briefly discussed this in the last meeting (well, "Discussed" is >> the wrong word). My view is that this is not our problem, any truly >> supported (well, you know what I mean) build machine has ksh88 >> present as /bin/ksh. If Indiana is supported as a build machine, >> nobody has yet told me. Should I get some free time, I may try it, >> but that's the best I'm going to say unless forced to do otherwise. > > Sigh. > > I'm not running Indiana. I'm not trying to build ON on Indiana. > I'm not running osol2008.05. I'm not trying to build ON on osol2008.05. > > All I did was ask whether you'd tried to run that script with > #!/usr/bin/ksh93 rather than #!/bin/ksh. > > If you haven't, that's fine. I think I will and I'll see how > it goes. > > Since we need at least build 77 for a "supported" build machine > these days, and ksh93 went into 72... I think it's a very reasonable > question to ask.
I disagree, as the top of the script says #! /bin/ksh -p That's ksh 88. While I'm willing (eager!) to try anything that may help us discover bugs we'll otherwise miss, I'm not particularly willing to go further. I tried this briefly on your behalf, it worked to the degree I looked. -- Rich
