From owner-freebsd-current Sun Nov 1 20:15:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA29245 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 20:15:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from zone.syracuse.net (zone.syracuse.net [205.232.47.17]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA29233 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 20:15:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from green@zone.syracuse.net) Received: from localhost (green@localhost) by zone.syracuse.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA06405; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 23:15:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 23:15:05 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Feldman To: "John W. DeBoskey" cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Changing sh for compatibility sake In-Reply-To: <199811011656.LAA14169@bb01f39.unx.sas.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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