On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 12:56 AM, Alan Coopersmith
alan.coopersmith at oracle.com wrote:
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
I really do think that the way this was handled in OpenSolaris -- which
occurred without any significant ARC discussion of the concerns
surrounding this -- is unfortunate. I am half
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Jason King jason at ansipunx.net wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 5:26 PM, johansen at sun.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 04:08:09PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
I'd rather see us modernize our own tools. I resent abdication of
our own engineering, and the
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Garrett D'Amore gdamore at sun.com wrote:
On 03/19/10 08:27 AM, Glenn Fowler wrote:
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
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Peter Tribble peter.tribble at gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Darren J Moffat
darrenm at opensolaris.org wrote:
Why would I want to use ksh93 builtins if I have /usr/gnu/bin explicitly in
my path ? Are the ksh93 builtin versions 100%
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
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
On 03/19/10 08:27 AM, Glenn Fowler wrote:
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 said, its possible that the GNU tools will evolve in the future, at
a rate differently than the ksh93 versions do. (At that point, the case
says that the ksh93 version will either be adapted, or they'll stop
supplying the built-in.)
And, unfortunately, anyone who wants to deploy a
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:38:17 -0700 Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On 03/18/10 09:28 AM, Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
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
the fix to disable builtins for pfksh is only a few lines
dgk and I are checking out the code now
there is another alternative if we can pfexec bracket sections of code inline
I beleieve a message yesterday, about 1000 posts ago:) mentioned this is
possible
e.g., for the builtin b_mkdir()
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:51:26 +0100 Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote:
the fix to disable builtins for pfksh is only a few lines
dgk and I are checking out the code now
there is another alternative if we can pfexec bracket sections of code inline
I beleieve a message yesterday, about 1000 posts
11 matches
Mail list logo
