shell - ksh mandantory?

Mat wrote:

> Hi @all,

>

> me again... I figured out, that tarantelle tries to use ksh for some

> scripts.

>

> Is ksh needed mandantory or is a bash shell working too?

>

I think SGD-EE uses "ksh" as to be sure that the output of some commands

returns an expected pattern.

That does not mean that you'll have to use ksh for your applications;

again, I think ksh fires up ksh when it tries to launch an application.

Of course, your application might be powered by bash (using the

hash-pling syntax, eg #!/bin/bash) and SGD-EE should not be bothered by

that.

Best,

Rob

--

Roberto Zini - r.zini<@AT@>strhold.it

"Has anybody around here seen an aircraft carrier?"

(Pete "Maverick" Mitchell - Top Gun)

Rob at 2007-7-4 19:03:33 >

Hi Bill,

thanx for reply.. I wonder because I still have my DISPLAY prob (as some

threads before) not yet solved.

There I found:

> > > sophie:~# exec /bin/sh

> > > sophie:~# [ -f /bin/ksh ] && exec /bin/ksh

> > > sophie:~# set +o emacs ; set +o gmacs ; set +o vi

> > > sh: set: gmacs: invalid option name

> > > sophie:~#

And because I don\\\'t know the diffrece between sh and ksh I asked :-)

But I\\\'ll try later with ksh and see what happens...

cheers,

Bill Weir wrote:

> I\\\'m not aware of any scripts that require ksh, although some do use it

> if it is found. A few scripts need functionality that may not be

> present in some older shells, but bash is fine (and probably reasonably

> recent versions of Bourne shell too).

> Any particular scripts that were worrying you?

> Regards,

> --

> Bill Weir, Tarantella Engineer.

> Mat wrote on 04/08/2005 11:09:

> > Hi @all,

> >

> > me again... I figured out, that tarantelle tries to use ksh for some

> > scripts.

> >

> > Is ksh needed mandantory or is a bash shell working too?

> >

Mat at 2007-7-4 19:03:33 >

Hi

I remember this, we try to run ksh because it's known to be a 'job

control' shell. Some versions of Unix (possibly SCO) did not have job

control via sh, life was like that in the olden days of the 1990s. On

Linux, sh is bash which is the fully compatible Korn shell GNU equivalent,

so it's absolutely not a problem here.

Why do we want a job control shell? If you don't get one you can end up

with unusual termination conditions when processes send themselves, or

each other, SIGHUP. Something like that, I'm a bit fuzzy on the details

:)

Barrie

On 2005-08-04, Bill Weir <bill@not.here> wrote:

> Mat,

>

> The example you quote is checking to see if ksh exists, and running it

> if it does. In your case it appears not to exist, so we don't run it.

> I can't remember the details of why we run ksh if available, but I'm

> fairly sure it will not be relevant to your DISPLAY problem.

>

> Regards,

>

> --

> Bill.

>

> Mat wrote on 04/08/2005 16:12:

>> Hi Bill,

>>

>> thanx for reply.. I wonder because I still have my DISPLAY prob (as some

>> threads before) not yet solved.

>>

>> There I found:

>>

>>

>>>>>sophie:~# exec /bin/sh

>>>>>sophie:~# [ -f /bin/ksh ] && exec /bin/ksh

>>>>>sophie:~# set +o emacs ; set +o gmacs ; set +o vi

>>>>>sh: set: gmacs: invalid option name

>>>>>sophie:~#

>>

>>

>> And because I don\\\'t know the diffrece between sh and ksh I asked :-)

>>

>> But I\\\'ll try later with ksh and see what happens...

>>

>> cheers,

>>

>>

>>

>> Bill Weir wrote:

>>

>>

>>>I\\\'m not aware of any scripts that require ksh, although some do use it

>>>if it is found. A few scripts need functionality that may not be

>>>present in some older shells, but bash is fine (and probably reasonably

>>>recent versions of Bourne shell too).

>>

>>

>>>Any particular scripts that were worrying you?

>>

>>

>>>Regards,

>>

>>

>>>--

>>>Bill Weir, Tarantella Engineer.

>>

>>

>>>Mat wrote on 04/08/2005 11:09:

>>>

>>>>Hi @all,

>>>>

>>>>me again... I figured out, that tarantelle tries to use ksh for some

>>>>scripts.

>>>>

>>>>Is ksh needed mandantory or is a bash shell working too?

>>>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

barrie at 2007-7-4 19:03:33 >