Delivered-To: listarch-cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Message-ID: <19990216191158.C15986@cygnus.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:11:58 -0500
To: hcobb AT telegenisys DOT com
Cc: dwsharp AT iee DOT org, cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Re: sources
References: <36C856B3 DOT E5010221 AT dddandr DOT octacon DOT co DOT uk> <19990215231439 DOT B11574 AT cygnus DOT com> <199902160908 DOT 5731104 DOT 6 AT www DOT web-alive DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93i
In-Reply-To: <199902160908.5731104.6@www.web-alive.com>; from Henry J. Cobb on Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 09:04:54AM -0800

On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 09:04:54AM -0800, Henry J. Cobb wrote:
>There were a few versions of /bin/sh (well, one per vendor at least).
>
>Which /bin/sh will you model your efforts on?

I'm not aware of much disparity between /bin/sh's.  The one exception
that I am aware of is on Ultrix which we hardly need to consider.

cgf