On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 08:21:39PM +0100, Bruno Jargot wrote: > I am still very sceptical because most comments I see from people with > a @sun.com address talk about a Real Bourne Shell or Backward > Compatibility and not about the Reality that all other competitors > have evolved their /bin/sh much further with POSIX as minimum. IMO the
No, most of them started with something more recent. To the extent that they care about compatibility and not breaking their users' code (remember the bash2 to bash3 transition the GNU distributions went through? lotsa fun that was), they have or will run into the same challenges we see here. > discussion is not balanced, too many people look backwards and ignore > the Reality of software development and evolution. Solaris is the last Ooooh, capital-R-Reality. Please spare us your delusion that your worldview is the only one. There's something useful to be discussed here, but automatically replacing binaries with arbitrarily incompatible new ones just to address your Reality is not sound engineering practice. > of the Unix operating system which is under active development and > ships the Real Bourne Shell as /bin/sh. This worries me and looks like > a bad omen about the future of Opensolaris. What exactly worries you about it? Previous messages in this thread concerned specific instances in which use of this shell is actually required versus those in which you have freedom to choose among various executable interpreters. Given that the former set appears to be insignificant (use of system(3c) and obsolete /etc/rc.d scripts), what problem exactly would you like to see solved that you can't solve today by setting a user's shell to something else or writing scripts that start with #!/something/else? -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!" _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
