>Darren J Moffat wrote: >[snip] >> The only way I think I can accept the creation of pfksh93 (and by the >> implications of this case this code base will be come that for >> /usr/bin/pfksh at some point) is if this case at least makes the current >> situation no worse than it already is > >The situnation is IMO better than the old ksh since there are now >multiple ways to handle the "builtin vs. pfexec" issue in a clean and >predictable way, see below.
I also intend to fix the pfexec issue in a better way (make it more transparent). (But the ksh93 builtins for chown and such do complicate that somewhat further) Casper
