Darren J Moffat wrote: > Roland Mainz wrote: > > If we want to enforce portable scripting via using the POSIX tools then > > the tools in the Makefiles and in the "bldenv" interactive environment > > should be identical. This is why I suggested to use > > /usr/xpg6/bin:/usr/xpg4/bin before /usr/bin to make sure we use thos > > features mandated by POSIX/XPG6 (I can make a patch for that after the > > ksh93 putback). > > What problem is this solving though ? > > The fact that the internal to the build system scripts aren't POSIX > compliant doesn't appear to be causing any problems that I can see. > Some of the most useful autocheck tools in the build system aren't even > written in shell script at all but in perl.
It doesn't solve today's problem but it may solve some of tomorrow's problems. The idea is to increase portabilty for scenarious like cross-compile environments or things when OS/Net may (some day) be build in non-"C" locales (like en_US.UTF-8). In both examples the tools in /usr/bin/ will fail horribly. Another side-effect is that the tools in XPG4/XPG6 are sometimes more feature-ritch (e.g. /usr/bin/awk vs. /usr/xpg4/bin/awk, "sed", /sbin/sh vs. /usr/xpg4/bin/sh etc.) which may be nice, too. The resulting tree would be more portable, would contain less "suprises" for those who come from other platforms and may even be less painfull to work with (for example I put SHELL=/usr/bin/ksh in the ksh93 Makefiles since I was tired of adding more and more workarounds to get the shell glue somehow running with /sbin/sh (and I am not the only one who is unhappy about this part...)). ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;) _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
