James Carlson wrote: > James Carlson writes: > >> I'm sponsoring this fast-track request on behalf of April Chin and the >> ksh93 project team. Please note that this is an *open* case. >> > > One possible point of concern here is the `getconf' duplication. This > project delivers a separate implementation of that feature, so that we > end up having two (the ksh93 one is a strict superset), and they are > to be kept in sync by means of additional testing. > I recall a longer term plan would be to have a single implementation of this (and many of the builtin commands). Is this still the plan and getconf would be part of that? (Basically, is this duplication a short term expedient?)
- jek3
