On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Garrett D'Amore <gdamore at sun.com> wrote: > On 03/18/10 09:37 AM, Peter Tribble wrote: > I have a couple of opinions about all this, which I'll restate here: > > 1) In an ideal world, we'd supply (by "default") a single implementation of > these commands. It seems like ksh93 is the most well-maintained POSIX > conforming implementation, and offers all the features people seem to want, > so that seems like the best choice.
+1 > 2) /usr/gnu versions would still ship for people who *insist*, but we should > not be advocating GNU versions in preference to the POSIX conforming > versions. /usr/gnu has no place (IMO) on the default user's path. The fact > that we put it there at all now is just a crutch to workaround the lack of > investment in the aging (rotting!) Sun userland (ksh93 not included) Oracle could hire either Olga Kryzhanovska or Roland Mainz to work on the Solaris userland. Both are experts in the area and the driving force behind the ksh93 and POSIX community efforts. > 3) IMO, the configuration of builtins should be enabled the same way that > other PATH elements are enabled -- via a new PATH element. I would not mind > seeing /usr/ksh93/bin. This could be prepended to the default PATH for new > users. It would provide POSIX conforming (plus any of the popular desired > features from GNU, BSD, etc.) implementations of commands, but would also > allow for simple builtins to be used by libcmd and ksh93. Since ksh93 uses > libcmd, there would be *zero* functional difference apart from the savings > of a fork/exec, and everyone would be happy. > > This whole nonsense IMO, comes about because the ksh93 folks want to enable > higher performance, but someone decided that /usr/gnu should be at the front > of default users PATHs. I think *that* decision was busted. Right. +1 Irek
