Glenn Fowler wrote:
> On Sat, 20 May 2006 03:13:28 +0200 Roland Mainz wrote:
> > Maybe it doesn't need to be disabled, just the path prefix (currently
> > it's "/bin") needs to be changed - either to /usr/xpg4/bin/uname (which
> > means the builtin is used when ${PATH} contains /usr/xpg4/bin/ and the
> > matching ${PATH} element is searched) or /usr/ast/bin/uname.
> > Based on April's comment in
> > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ksh93-integration-discuss/2006-May/000336.html
> > the 2nd option ("/usr/ast/bin/uname") would be my preference since there
> > is no /usr/xpg4/bin/uname binary and "/usr/ast/bin/uname will only
> > affect scripts which add /usr/ast/bin/ to their ${PATH}
>
> how about an FHS /opt/ast prefix?
> it would have a better chance of matching ast package
> installations in other systems
Erm... yes. The "tricky" part is that we add ksh93&co. to the base OS.
I'm not sure whether people (such as PSARC) will be happy to see a
dependicy to /opt (which is AFAIK for "optional" packages) ... that's
why I picked /usr/ast/ (it's in /usr, currently not used by Solaris and
we don't create any files in there (yet!) so we're 100% on the "safe"
side) in my upcoming patch...
----
Bye,
Roland
--
__ . . __
(o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org
\__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
/O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090
(;O/ \/ \O;)
