EdStevens wrote:

> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>
> > You have not read one shred of documentation about it;
>
> You assume much ....

So have you read documentation about the setenv
you found through find ? If yes what did it say ?

> >it's just
> > something you found lying in some path somewhere.
>
> No. It was something found in a script generated by a major, trusted
> vendor. And from the context in which it was found, it's intended
> function was rather obvious.

You said you found it using find. Whether the author
of the script which produced the error had in mind the
sentenv you found through find or some other setenv
you don't know.

> Have you even checked
> >> whether it's a script or a binary executable?
> >
>
> Yes, I had. Sorry you just blindly assume that I hadn't.

What is it then ?

> >
> > > (Another anomoly, which I need to pose to the vendor (Oracle) is that
> > > it appears from the man page that setenv is for csh, but not sh, yet
> > > they gen a script which specifically runs sh and calls setenv.)
> >
> > But don't worry, they are getting into the Linux distribution business,
> > which will teach them a thing or two, even if it's by way of
> > acquisition.
>
> Well, it's not as if they are a bunch of bumbling boobs. The man page
> does document that 'setenv' is native to some shells, so I can see
> where it would be easy enough for the guy who wrote the script genning
> routing to miss that it isn't universal.

Boobs or not you know they screwed up in this case.
Perhaps the guy who wrote the script got confused
between shells but didn't he test the script that was
produced ? It doesn't look as if he did and that's worrying.