Peter Memishian wrote: > > > It's fine to make use of the ksh builtin support for various commands, > but > > > can we please learn from the problems that occurred when we changed sleep > > > to be a builtin recently (e.g. 6793120) and instead create trivial > wrapper > > > *programs* that access the builtin functionality through libshell? > > > > I already have a fix (tested and queued for my sponsor) for CR #6793120 > > which does something similar as you've proposed... > > So there is a unique pid for each program and thus it can still be pkill'd?
If you start the command as seperate child job (e.g. $ sleep 12345 & #) it will always have a seperate pid. But that was not the problem which caused CR #6793120 - the process name changed from "sleep 12345" to something like "ksh93 sleep 12345" which caused the PIT test scripts to fail because they matched exactly for the process name "sleep 12345". The upcoming patch makes sure the processes get their expected name. ---- Bye, Roland P.S.: If you need a seperate process id or do not want to use builtins you can either specify the full path of the command (e.g. use "/usr/bin/sleep" instead of just "sleep" - this forces the shell to run the external command since POSIX requires that calling a command with the full path runs _exactly_ this executable and not a builtin) or use (in the case of ksh93) the "bulitin" command to remove this builtin command from the list of builtins. -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 3992797 (;O/ \/ \O;)
