> the library (the top one may be) decide that source -i > is the general way to go a decide a despotic alias > source='source -i' this could be a general setup of > this package manager.
This is not a problem that's introduced by this patch. People can already do that today. Anyone could write `alias source='rm -rf --no-preserve-root /*'` right now, nothing stops them. So I don't see why this would be a reason against inclusion of this feature. I understand your concern though. Perhaps we can find ways to work around it or fully address it. Bash has the command builtin which can be used to ensure a real utility is executed instead of an alias or function. It also works for builtins such as source. I could also propose a new flag for it that restricts its operation to builtins only, eliminating the PATH search and ensuring that builtins cannot be replaced by a program on the file system either. I'm not sure what the maintainer would think about it but I could also propose a shopt that prohibits the aliasing of builtins and other reserved words. These should completely solve that problem for new scripts but not for the code you have already deployed and can't change or update. I'm not sure what to do about them. However, the fact is there's any number of things that other people can do to break them already. > Another things that bugs me, why not implementing your invention in a > dynamically loaded builtin, advertise it on github, and let the one who > really needs this great thing be their choice download it, and use it. I don't really want to maintain such a thing. I'm struggling to find time to work on my personal projects as it is. We are lucky to have someone who maintains bash and who is considering this feature for addition. > I personally have my own bash and own ksh for our internal needs, we > maintain them, and we have our own set of internally crafted builtins, I > would not dare push them to shell maintainers, fearing breaking all who > depend on bash/ksh/dash whatever for their OS startup, init script, > configure script etc... I don't want to fork bash. I want to be able to download the latest version with my package manager and get access to this. If I had to fork bash to get this, I would simply give up and continue working on my own programming language instead. -- Matheus
