On 03/19/10 07:58 AM, Norm Jacobs wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's a good point, and perhaps that can be looked into in the
>> future. However, I think this discussion is veering off-topic for
>> this case, as you're now debating the implementation and architecture
>> of the shell built-ins in general, which is not being introduced by
>> this case. That was introduced by PSARC 2006/550. This case is
>> building upon previously approved architecture.
>>
>
> Perhaps I delve slightly into implementation detail here, but the
> issue of consistency is something that needs to be addressed here and
> now, not wait for the future.
I am coming to agree. While I'm the sponsor on this case, I'm on the
verge of derailing this case and asking that a new case to examine
userland shell architecture be created. The fact that we have to put
/usr/gnu at the head of $PATH of new users is a bit of a travesty, and
I'm of the opinion that we should reexamine *that* particular decision,
in which case much of the motivation behind *this* case comes into
question. (If /usr/gnu isn't the default for most users, then there is
little motivation to provide builtin wrappers for them.)
I'd rather see ksh93 based utilities (or rather libcmd based) with all
the bells and whistles delivered into /usr/bin or perhaps /usr/ksh93/bin
(and put at the head of $PATH) and leave /usr/gnu as a dumping ground
for people who insist that they want GNU warts.
-- Garrett
