On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 09:48:51PM +0100, Roland Mainz wrote: > Erm... I didn't suggest to cause incompatibilties - the "ipf_include.sh" > is a _new_ file and all the new consumers (e.g. introduced by this > putback) which use it can be switched to ksh93 by replacing the first > like from "#!/sbin/sh" to "#!/usr/bin/ksh93" (ksh93 is sufficiently > backwards-compatible to the original Bourne shell that this works > out-of-the-box). This doesn't need to ARC'ed (and we can ask John > Plocher for confirmation if you want) and there is sufficent precedent > in OS/Net.
Oh, that's different. The question then is: can you require that all consumers of ipf_include.sh be KSH93 scripts? (I.e., will all services using ipf_include.sh be dependent on /usr being mounted?) If so then I don't see why you couldn't contribute your re-write and why the i-team couldn't test it (and if they don't have time now, then maybe you can push this right after their push, with their help for testing).
