On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:13:48 -0700 Garrett D'Amore wrote: > 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. dgk are discussing this right now we had somehow missed the detail that the proposed ksh builtin binding dir is "/usr/gnu/bin" just because a libcmd builtin handles some gnu options does not make it gnu there are most likely gnu features that libcmd builtins will never implement e.g., the gnu getopt(3) "feature" that allows options to appear after operands once we solidify the ideas where should we post, and under what subject? -- Glenn Fowler -- at&t Research, Florham Park NJ --
