FYI: The upstream authors confirmed that the scripts work with any POSIX-conforming shell. No explicit bash syntax is used.
IMO from a PSARC pov its not a matter of which shell is better, its a matter of which shell interface is being imported and that's certainly not SUNWbash, its /usr/xpg4/bin/sh Irek On 12/15/08, Bart Smaalders <bart.smaalders at sun.com> wrote: > Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote: > >> On 12/15/08, Danek Duvall <danek.duvall at sun.com> wrote: > >>>> 4.2 Imported Interfaces > >>> > > >>> > Interface Name Classification Comments > >>> > --------------------------- -------------------- > -------------------------- > >>> > SUNWbash Volatile Package > >>> > >>> > >>> You don't mention in the exported interface table that any of the > >>> executables are bash scripts -- is there some other reason you're > depending > >>> on bash? > >>> > >>> +1 > >> There is no need to use bash, the scripts should work with ksh93. > > > > > > And it would be better to use bash; if only because of some fatal bugs in > > bash. The worst offending bug probably only happens when you are > > unfortunately to have to use bash as your interactive shell: > > > > sleep 10; rm -rf / > > > > > > Now type "^C". (Yes, you are saved by "rm" in Solaris, but I've steered > > clear of bash since I've learned this) > > > > Casper > > > > > Perhaps we could stay on track and send suggested changes to the > upstream maintainers in the form of patches, rather than raising > issues here. I like Python a lot better than Perl, but I'm not going > object to someone integrating ExifTool. > > - Bart > > > > -- > Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance > barts at cyber.eng.sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/barts > "You will contribute more with mercurial than with thunderbird." > > _______________________________________________ > opensolaris-arc mailing list > opensolaris-arc at opensolaris.org >
