On 10/31/06, Garrett D'Amore <garrett_damore at tadpole.com> wrote: > I do think it may be reasonable to ship a 64-bit ksh93, e.g. in > /usr/bin/sparcv9/ksh93 or somesuch, which can then either be hardlinked > into /usr/bin or hardcoded into those scripts that need such large data, > at the sites where it is necessary. /usr/bin/sparcv9/ is not a public API and it is not portable across different hardware.
> So I'm not saying we shouldn't ship > a 64-bit ksh93, I'm just saying that we shouldn't wrap ksh93 with isaexec. What is the point to ship a 64bit binary of the shell and then don't use it by default? IMO this is the wrong way to look at the problem. The project should look ahead at the future and not back. The future of Solaris is 64bit and not 32bit and I trust the project team that they did research and made the correct decision. -1 for your comments. -- Josh
