Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 22:52:07 -0500 (EST) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> To: freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Importing mksh in base Message-ID: <201901270352.x0R3q7r1058033@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <201901270019.x0R0JpF4096103@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> <32153.1548546852@kaos.jnpr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <201901270019.x0R0JpF4096103@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> you write: >Doesnt pdksh have a "sh" compatible mode iirc when you >invoke it via a path of sh it behaves as a traditional >bourne shell, also if IIRC Openbsd is doing just that, >/bin/sh -> /bin/pdksh (hard link) POSIX specifies the shell to be ksh88 (with some modifications for locale support). ksh93 has some different behavior from ksh88, but most (not all) of the ways in which it differs are compatible extensions to the POSIX shell. (The reason it's still called ksh93 today has to do with internal corporate legal bureaucracy that made it easier to release "updates" than a new "version".) Both the Almquist shell (which is the ancestor of our /bin/sh) and bash were aligned with the POSIX specification as it evolved, and the current /bin/sh and bash maintainers continue to participate in the Austin Group process for shell standardization. (Robert Elz, who maintain's NetBSD's version of the Almquist shell, also participates, as do the author of mksh and the author of the portable shell scripting library modernish. David Korn used to participate but has not been heard from in several years.) -GAWollman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201901270352.x0R3q7r1058033>