[Thus spake Dan LaBell ("DL: ") 8:42pm...]

DL: Here, again, drift from original topic.. I'm asking if rc scripts are
DL: 'bourne compatible'
DL: or do they use the new features in the posix sh ...  When I see /bin/sh
DL:   I think
DL: bourne shell... I don't think posix shell, but /bin/sh is posix.. so I
DL: posed the question.   Now, I notice that osh man page claims it is
DL: backward compatible with
DL: Thompson shell, the Six Edition shell, not the 7th ed Bourne shell,
DL: also seems to suggest
DL: not secure as well.. sigh.

If you don't compile in line editing (and maybe not job control, either)
by using -DSMALL in the make specification, you get a smaller shell that
doesn't need to haul in all the cruft.

True, that means I can't set -o emacs but for a bourne shell, I *really*
don't care!

[and this doesn't help people who don't rebuild their systems]

DL: 2. standardized two shells: kept sh small, so there are less blocks to
DL: load from disk,
DL: and less memory used on simple scripts.. maybe add a few builtins like
DL: [ , true, false,
DL: and either, not added Arithmetic Expansion, or add expr as a builtin.
DL: Then made jsh,
DL: the sh with job control found on Suns and elsewhere, a standard, and
DL: added linediting
DL: and job control there... it like a waste for shell scripts
DL: like

Yes, it's a waste, to be sure.

If you want a sh-compatible interactive shell with job control, build
sh -DSMALL, go get/use ksh, zsh, bash, whatever, and leave /bin/sh to
doing its job of running scripts.

I don't think the POSIX-compatible stuff adds all that much to the executable
-- I think that comes in from all the linedit crap.

[now, of course, some smug soul will come along and prove me wrong...]

				--*greywolf;
--
System V was a mistake.