Garrett D'Amore wrote: > I'm not a huge fan of keeping two different sets of utilities around.
Me neither but just like /usr/xpg?/ these aren't 100% compatible. > It would be good to get our ls(1) to be 100% compatible with the GNU > features. Is that the only complaint you have, or are there others? Is it even possible to be 100% compatible with the GNU one - I don't know since I don't know where the gaps are now post the excellent work that was done recently in this area. > IMO, continuing to ship these on every install is wasteful. I value my > use of "/bin/tcsh" more than your unusual colorized ls options. Who > should win? /bin/zsh of course ! > Let me put that another way. I have no problem with these things being > delivered via an IPS repo to some path not in the default (or renamed as > "gls" or somesuch, for example). But I don't think these GNU versions > of utilities should be installed by default, at least not while we are > electing to not install other components that are (IMO) far more useful > because we don't have enough room on the install media. Exactly what I was saying they can be in the repository but they don't need to be installed by default. The real architectural problem though is that the desire to remove these come from /usr/gnu/bin being higher in the default PATH. We should fix the root cause of the problem. -- Darren J Moffat
