Roland Mainz <roland.mainz at nrubsig.org> wrote:
> If we ever do a migration of /bin/sh to ksh93 it may be nice to use the
> 64bit version if possible, maybe with or without the isaexec machinery
> in place. Both options would be Ok for /bin/sh.
> However /usr/bin/ksh should be a more capable shell and the isaexec is
> needed even on 64bit platforms to make sure that we can use the 32bit
> version on demand (for example when a ksh93 plugin library is only
> available as 32bit version).
I would like to keep the Bourne Shell for /bin/sh but even /bin/sh should
be a 64 bit shell.
For such a binary, I would propose to mount /usr/bin/64/sh on top of /usr/bin/sh
in case that the machine is running a 64 bit kernel.
> > Instead of replacing /bin/sh and breaking backwards compatibility,
> > it would help more to find a useful way to define how to directly refer to
> > the POSIX shell (and this way e.g. allowing to standardize on
> > #!<interpreter>).
>
> This would AFAIK be "/usr/xpg4/bin/sh", however this is useless because
> operating systems like Linux, *BSD and MacOSX do not have this file.
> Their /bin/sh is usually a POSIX shell by default (yes, I know...
> "bash"'s POSIX-conformace is more or less for /dev/null - but most stuff
> works...), including some further extensions beyond the POSIX shell spec
> which have become more or less a de-facto standard.
The "problem" is that POSIX is a _source_ standard and thus does not specify
path names.....
J?rg
--
EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
