Todd Vierling <tv@wasabisystems.com> writes:
> : This is not documented anywhere other than in the source, but then I
> : don't recall having documented SETUIDSCRIPTS and FDSCRIPTS, either.
> 
> er, ahem... I documented them in options.4 some time ago.  8-)

Yes, i figured that _somebody_ had documented them.  It just wasn't
me.  8-)


> : (These days, 'sh' is pretty much standardized by POSIX and perhaps
> : other standards, but alas not every system's /bin/sh is that standard
> : shell.  On some, e.g. solaris, it's ksh.  on others, who knows.  8-)
> 
> Solaris has their `standards-compliant' Bourne shell in /usr/xpg4/bin/sh,
> and a mostly-compliant ksh in [/usr]/bin/ksh.

FYI:

On all three versions of solaris i just checked (2.5.1, 2.6, 2.7),
/bin/ksh and /usr/xpg4/bin/ksh were hard links to the same binary, and
/usr/xpg4/bin/sh was a symlink to /usr/xpg4/bin/ksh.

According to the GNU autoconf documentation
(http://subversions.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/autoconf/doc/autoconf.texi?rev=1.409&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup),
however:

@item @command{/usr/xpg4/bin/sh} on Solaris
@cindex @command{/usr/xpg4/bin/sh} on Solaris
The @sc{posix}-compliant Bourne shell on a Solaris system is
@command{/usr/xpg4/bin/sh} and is part of an extra optional package.
There is no extra charge for this package, but it is also not part of a
minimal OS install and therefore some folks may not have it.


That all makes me think that on solaris, /bin/ksh is just fine to use
but /usr/xpg4/bin/{,k}sh may be better _if_ they're there.  I've never
run into a feature that was missing in /bin/ksh that I needed.  (I
don't tend to stress sh, but do use a bit more than solaris /bin/sh
provides.)


cgd
--
not speaking for my employer.