April Chin wrote:
> > Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > Roland Mainz <roland.mainz at nrubsig.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mhhh... would it be a good idea to make a standalone wrapper (e.g. |int
> > > > main(int ac, char **av, char **env) { return b_uname(ac, av, env); }|)
> > > > around the ksh93 builtin and stuff it into /usr/xpg4/bin/ ? That may be
> > > > a cheap way to get a POSIX-conformant "uname" into that directory... :-)
> > >
> > > Why do you believe that /usr/bin/uname is not POSIX compliant?
> >
> > Let me re-phrase that statement: "... a cheap way to get a version of
> > 'uname' into that directory which does not have Solaris-specific
> > extensions (e.g. allows the creation of portable scripts without the
> > risk of falling into the 'OS-specific-extension'-trap again)". Better ?
> > :-)
>
> If you are suggesting creating a new /usr/xpg4/bin/uname in
> Solaris/OpenSolaris
> source, I don't think this is a good idea. /usr/xpg4/bin was intended
> for commands which have standards-enforced behavior which is incompatible
> with the corresponding /usr/bin behavior. It is not intended to be
> a place where a second version of a standards-compliant uname can reside.
Well, in the case of "uname" my idea was to have a /usr/xpg4/bin/uname
which implements the standard without extensions... but then... after
more thinking... you're right - it doesn't make much sense... ;-(
----
Bye,
Roland
--
__ . . __
(o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org
\__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
/O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090
(;O/ \/ \O;)
