On 03/18/10 09:09 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
>
>
>> ksh93-integration-discuss@ currently has an ongoing discussion about
>> this and the broken profile shell concept. There are two concurrent
>> proposals to integrate the concepts of shell builtins and profile
>> shells.
>
> Then this case should be put in waiting need spec until that
> discussion reaches some consensus.
>
> The profile shell concept is not broken, some people may not like what
> it is or how it works but it is approved a delivered architecture. It
> has been deliver as part of Solaris since Solaris 8 and is based on
> functionality going back more than 15 years in various Trusted Solaris
> (and even before that name) releases of SunOS.
Architecturally, I have to agree with Darren here. I don't know what
the concerns are here where this would fail to operate with the current
pfexec... I thought that it was just the case that pfexec would bypass
the builtin and use the filesystem supplied binary.
If the above isn't true, and there will be breakage for any of these,
then yes, this case needs to be put in waiting need spec. If however
the only problem is that pfexec'd versions of the builtins will not use
the builtin but suffer a performance penalty (a real fork/exec), then I
think we can proceed.
Can folks more familiar with the problem(s) involved here please clarify?
>
>>> If so then I wonder why we are even shipping the GNU
>>> ones.
>>
>> I don't see the point either since the ksh93 commands have both
>> features from GNU AND BSD
>
> Do the have 100% of the features with exactly the same behaviour though ?
>
Olga has assured me that yes, this is the case. (Modulo fixing some
edge case bugs, such as handling of multi-byte locales.)
- Garrett
