[illumos-Developer] [REVIEW] 850 system(3C) and similar could just use /bin/sh

[Gordon Ross]

I've looked at this previously, and I'm happy with it.

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Richard Lowe <richlowe at richlowe.net> wrote:
> All,
>
> I'd like review for:
>    850 system(3C) and similar could just use /bin/sh
>    873 Want a bsd-like <paths.h>
>
> webrev:
>    http://richlowe.net/webrevs/il_850
>
> 850:
>  We had a bunch of code in libc which conditionalized on __xpg4 to
> decide whether to run /bin/sh or /usr/xpg4/bin/sh.  With Illumos,
> these are the same shell, so none of this is necessary.
>
> 873:
>  In doing this, Gordon suggested that perhaps it'd be nice to have a
> BSD-like define for "the shell", so I have here imported NetBSD's
> <paths.h> with those entries which do not apply to us removed, and
> changes made as necessary to fit with illumos (for instance, the PATH
> and STDPATH changes).
>
>  A <paths.h> with similar definitions is present on all BSD systems
> (including OS X), and systems using the GNU C Library (such as Linux).
>
>  I plan in the future to use this header to commonise the various
> default $PATH definitions currently within libc (all those which say
> "Keep in sync with CSPATH", and haven't been).
>
> Testing:
>  - Used the ! command in ed and xpg4/ed under truss, made sure it was
> executing /usr/bin/sh
>
>  - Used both at and xpg4/at while trussing cron, made sure the
> correct shell was being used
>
>  - Wrote some small crappy bits of code which call execvp(3C),
> system(3C), popen(3C), and posix_spawnp(3C) in conditions which cause
> them to execute the shell, and verified both that they executed
> anything, and that what they executed was /usr/bin/sh
>
>  I also plan to re-test ahead of integration.
>
> -- Rich
>
> _______________________________________________
> Developer mailing list
> Developer at lists.illumos.org
> http://lists.illumos.org/m/listinfo/developer
>