I've removed PSARC from the distribution list.
Folks working on this should probably contact me with whatever updates
you think are appropriate to this case *before* you post to the alias.
I'm also happy to have a conversation with anyone who wants to try to
straighten things out so that when/if a resubmit occurs it runs more
smoothly.
- Garrett
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 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 --
>
>
