Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 10:07:01 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@mat.net> To: Brian Feldman <green@zone.syracuse.net> Cc: Studded <Studded@gorean.org>, "Dag-Erling C. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?=" <dag-erli@ifi.uio.no>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sh and ~ expansion Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9810251002310.375-100000@picnic.mat.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9810250920150.18224-100000@zone.syracuse.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Brian Feldman wrote: > Why don't we just use pdksh? It's even more compact than our current > Bourne/partially-Korn shell, and has lots of great Korn shell features > everyone loves but sh doesn't have. Not being a pdksh user, well, I know YOU are aware of the importance of not breaking ANY sh scripts for users, whether they're part of our base or not, because sh is the shell everyone writes in for portability, and it mustn't ever be broken ... so, is pdksh 100% compatible with sh, at least upwardly? I mean wth NO changes to ANY sh script? Do buildworlds complete, with pdksh in place as the shell, instead of sh? I'm not against this per se, but those are pretty important hurdles to go over, and I'm wary. Give us a lecture on it. Making this change would be neat, if it's truly possible. ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@glue.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and picnic (FreeBSD-current) (301) 220-2114 | and jaunt (NetBSD). ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9810251002310.375-100000>