Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 23:15:05 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Feldman <green@zone.syracuse.net> To: "John W. DeBoskey" <jwd@unx.sas.com> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Changing sh for compatibility sake Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9811012313320.5699-100000@zone.syracuse.net> In-Reply-To: <199811011656.LAA14169@bb01f39.unx.sas.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Well this is an interesting matter of discussion that is currently going around among pdksh developers, and is f course known. The "problem" is that pdksh uses seperate processes for reading, so they wouldn't be able to send data back. Stay tuned to pdksh development team news :) Cheers, Brian Feldman On Sun, 1 Nov 1998, John W. DeBoskey wrote: > Hi, > > I sent mail to this list a few months ago... pdksh doesn't run > the tail-end of a pipe in the current shell environment, thus the > following doesn't work as expected: > > export FOUND=0 > ls | wc -l | while read fcnt; do > export FOUND=$fcnt > done > echo $FOUND > > So, the comment below might need a slight modification to say > which scripts don't break... :-) > > Thanks! > John > > > Let me repeat this once more: not a SINGLE script breaks with pdksh! > > > > Brian Feldman > > > > On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote: > > > > > Chuck wrote: > > > >I'm sorry, that's not true. Ask anyone who writes shell scripts that > > > >install software (or perform any necessarily portable function) across > > > >multiple platforms. sh is the shell to use ONLY BECAUSE it's the lowest > > > >common denominator. Why else would they use the dumbest shell? > > > > > > I've written numerous system/install sh scripts. But it's not to > > > one specific implementation, its many. It seems like every OS > > > has it's own variant of sh. I do not know of any version of sh > > > that can reliable used as a golden target sh. Each and very > > > implementation of sh has its quirks that have to be dealt with. > > > FreeBSD sh definitely has its, as do the others. > > > > > > Any change will likely cause problems in some existing scripts. > > > Also, any change will cause developers to deal with additional > > > portability issues. This is life. Most multiple platform sh > > > developers have already adapted to specific quicks of popular > > > sh implementations. Changing from one to another should not > > > be that big of a deal. I suspect a few FreeBSD-only sh scripts > > > will choke. > > > > > > Don't change sh for compatibility sake, our scripts are already > > > compatible! Do change for functionality sake, we'll adapt as > > > necessary. > > > > > > Kurt > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > 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.4.05.9811012313320.5699-100000>