Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote: > >> You're making a very typical engineering decision-making mistake IMHO. >> The mistake? Turning every small issue into a big issue and then >> reaching the (flawed) conclusion that you can't solve the big issue >> for various reasons (possibly including insufficient resources). >> >> It's not an all-or-nothing problem. It's a small issue and the >> proposed solution is well worth the time/effort. >> > > Indeed; and apparently the ship has sailed, some method scripts > are already ksh or ksh93: > > 1 ELF binary > 1 ksh -p > 3 ksh93 > 7 ksh > 108 sh > > There's no reason to make all scripts use the same shell. > > SMF is much better than /etc/init.d; init.d is forced through /sbin/sh; > SMF gives you the freedom to use whatever the kernel can execute. >
I wasn't clear. The suggested ipf_include file is dotted by several other methods. Not all method scripts but only those that use ipf_include need to run the same shell as ipf_include. IFAIK, OpenSolaris delivers only ksh93 and renames sh to ksh, thus ksh93 is the only choice. My point was I'm not sure if it's reasonable to mandate scripts that uses ipf_method, delivered by other teams, to be ksh93 which may have incompatibilities such as scoping. Thanks, -tony
