Norm, On 03/18/10 07:57 PM, Norm Jacobs wrote: > It's not that I don't think that the ksh93 built-ins have a place and > that they couldn't be a perfectly reasonable default for most people. In > some cases, they seem to provide something that is sorely needed in the > Solaris userland, a blend of POSIX conforming and GNUish commands.
I'm afraid I don't understand your initial point. That's not what the ksh93 shell built-ins provide. $PATH is still honored, and the built-ins are compatible with the commands that are resolved from $PATH. You do not suddenly get a blend of POSIX and GNU commands. I believe that architecture introduced by PSARC 2006/550 maintains the semantics of $PATH by binding a built-in to a pathname, and only executing a built-in when a $PATH search matches the binding. > > Several things concern me about this case. > > * When I (read any user) explicitly set my PATH to include /usr/bin, > /usr/xpg4/bin, /usr/xpg6/bin, ..., I expect that my selection will > be honored. I am asking for a specific toolset and expect a bug > for bug compatible version. > * "default" behaviour should apply across the board here. > > For several paths on the system, customers expect certain behaviour > /usr/xpg4 XPG4 compatible behaviour > /usr/xpg6 XPG6 compatible behaviour > /usr/gnu GNU/Linux compatible behaviour > /usr/ucb SunOS/BSD 4.X behaviour > /usr/5bin SVR3 compatible behaviour > ... Given that the shell honors compatibility within each of the applicable paths for which it provides built-in bindings, there doesn't seem to be any issue regarding "compatible behavior". -Seb
