similar to: Using /bin/sh to exec subsystems [PATCH]

Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > > The schily tools act as a container to publish the current code state. There is > > no such maintained web page. > > I was referring to the summary on the SourceForge page, where you just list the contents of the package without explaining why one would want to download it. I thought I don't need to make advertizing for

Full_Name: Gordon Lack Version: 2.4.0 OS: OSF1 v5.1 Submission from: (NULL) (198.28.92.5) Changes to the bin/R front-end interlude script at 2.4.0 (cf: 2.2.0) have broken R on (Dec/Compaq/HP) OSF1. There are 3 occurrences of "${@}", but this is the incorrect syntax for adding $@, as on older Bourne shells this will add an empty (but present) parameter. The result is that the build

Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:38 AM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has been > > added with Svr4: > > Is there any difference between your osh and the Heirloom Bourne Shell? > >

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:32:45AM -0400, Scott Robbins wrote: > Wasn't Solaris, which for awhile at least, was probably the most popular > Unix, using ksh by default? Solaris /bin/sh was a real real dumb version of the bourne shell. Solaris included /bin/ksh as part of the core distribution (ksh88 was a part of the SVr4 specification) and so many scripts were written with #!/bin/ksh at

<m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > Ah. I don't remember if I was using csh, or ksh, and didn't realize about > bash. I *think* I vaguely remember that sh seemed to be more capable than > I remembered. If you like to check what the Bourne Shell did support in the late 1980s, I recommend you to fetch recent Schily tools from:

Dear all, During a recent package submission, we were highlighted that some lines in our configure script didn't follow the correct syntax. The lines looked like this: x=$(($y/10)) We were indicated at the time that this is because the statement does not use Bourne shell syntax, which is absolutely true, and also that the manual warns about this, which is true again. So far everything

As noted on my blog and at http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/dtrace/shells/ I''ve made available a DTrace provider for the Bourne shell. Before anyone starts yelling at me for not starting with another shell, read the blog I made explaining why we started with shell (link on the community page referenced above). For /bin/sh, I''ve put up something akin to a chapter in

Greg Rivers <gcr+dovecot at tharned.org> wrote: > On Saturday, May 09, 2015 22:25:48 Michael Grimm wrote: >>> or just try if it works if you change it to /bin/sh and use whatever >>> FreeBSD has that pointing to. >> That fails because /bin/sh equals /bin/csh at FBSD. > I don't know if it fails or not, but if it does this is not the reason. > /bin/sh

>>>>> I?aki ?car writes: Same from here: in addition to what the standards say, it always pays to be defensive and check "Portable Shell Programming" in the Autoconf manual. Among other things, this says '$((EXPRESSION))' Arithmetic expansion is not portable as some shells (most notably Solaris 10 '/bin/sh') don't support it. motivating

Pete Geenhuizen <pete at geenhuizen.net> wrote: > Initially Bourne was used because it was typically a static binary, > because the boot process didn't have access to any shared libraries. > When that changed it became a bit of a moot point, and you started to > see other interpreters being used. When dynamic linking was intruduced in 1988, people did kno know what we

On 30.06.23 17:56, MCMANUS, MICHAEL P wrote: > The actual command is similar to the following (parameters inserted to protect the source): > (print ${FQDN} ; print ${Environment} ; cat ${OutFileXML}) | \ > ssh -Ti ${EmbeddedPrivateKey} \ > -o HostKeyAlias="${Alias}" \ > -o

It was the mid/late-90s, but I seem to recall Bourne being the default shell, although sh/ksh/csh were all available with a typical install. On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Scott Robbins <scottro at nyc.rr.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:02:56AM -0400, mark wrote: > > On 04/24/15 06:57, Pete Geenhuizen wrote: > > > > > >On 04/24/15 06:07, E.B. wrote:

I've run into several instances where I want to give users access only to scp or sftp. Now I know that there are custom shells out there with this ability. However, wouldn't it further simplify the core sshd code if sh and scp were implemented as subsystems, thereby lowering the chance of flaws in the core code? I wouldn't mind putting some work into doing this patch myself if it is

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Charles Davis <cdavis5x at gmail.com> wrote: > > On May 22, 2013, at 5:14 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > Can anyone see good a reason not to move to cmake as our only build > > configuration system and drop future support for autoconf + makefiles > > now that 3.3 has branched? > +1. > - CMake

On 04/26/16 21:13, John R Pierce wrote: > On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: >> >> Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, >> one of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues. Well >> that's all news to me, and I cannot find anything online to >> corroborate the claim. Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD, or

On May 22, 2013, at 5:14 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > Hi All, > > Can anyone see good a reason not to move to cmake as our only build > configuration system and drop future support for autoconf + makefiles > now that 3.3 has branched? I can think of several: - When the Clang CMakefiles go to build compiler-rt (if present), they use the compiler used to build Clang and not the

On 04/27/16 13:21, Pouar wrote: > On 04/27/16 08:49, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: >> On 04/26/16 21:13, John R Pierce wrote: >>> On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: >>>> Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, >>>> one of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues. Well >>>> that's all news to me,

Scott Robbins wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 07:27:26PM -0700, Alice Wonder wrote: >> >> Some of the BSDs use to have a bourne shell and maybe some do, I don't know. >> > Yup. > >> bash is mostly compatible with bourne (can run most bourne scripts) which is why /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash on GNU and most other *nix systems. > > Bash can run

On Apr 27, 2015, at 10:10 AM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > >> I was referring to the summary on the SourceForge page, where you just list the contents of the package without explaining why one would want to download it. > > I thought I don't need to make advertizing for well

On 26/04/16 10:07 PM, John R Pierce wrote: > On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: >> >> Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, one >> of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues. Well that's >> all news to me, and I cannot find anything online to corroborate the >> claim. Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD, or