Re: mksh

[Thorsten Glaser <tg%mirbsd.org@localhost>]

Tobias Nygren <tnn <at> NetBSD.org> writes:

> I have no particular opinion except I'm aware that some of the addon
> functionality such as the support for printf(1) style hexadecimal escape
> sequences in the echo(1) builtin have the potential to break existing
> scripts.

Not if the shell is built with -DMKSH_BINSHREDUCED when it is called
as /bin/sh, -sh, etc. (for example via crunchgen).

Of course, while Iâd be delighted for both, you should probably distinguish
between replacing /bin/ksh with mksh (with a hardlink from ksh to mksh) and
replacing /bin/sh with mksh.

For what itâs worth, FreeWRT has done both, MidnightBSD too, Android-x86
didnât even have a ksh and Android proper are currently considering it.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 ships with mksh as both ksh88 and pdksh repla-
cement (and ksh93 for ksh93 scripts), and from what I gathered, their
customers have tested their scripts with mksh and Iâm not aware of any
bugs foundâ

Iâm not reading this list, but ahoka@ sits in #!/bin/mksh on IRC too,
and he is.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
FWIW, I'm quite impressed with mksh interactively. I thought it was much
*much* more bare bones. But it turns out it beats the living hell out of
ksh93 in that respect. I'd even consider it for my daily use if I hadn't
wasted half my life on my zsh setup. :-) -- Frank Terbeck in #!/bin/mksh