Joseph Kowalski wrote: > James Carlson wrote: > > James Carlson writes: > >> I'm sponsoring this fast-track request on behalf of April Chin and the > >> ksh93 project team. Please note that this is an *open* case. > > > > One possible point of concern here is the `getconf' duplication. This > > project delivers a separate implementation of that feature, so that we > > end up having two (the ksh93 one is a strict superset), and they are > > to be kept in sync by means of additional testing. > > > I recall a longer term plan would be to have a single implementation of > this (and > many of the builtin commands). Is this still the plan and getconf would > be part > of that? (Basically, is this duplication a short term expedient?)
Yes... we'd like to do that (we just got the approval to contribute parts of Solaris to upstream on demand) however the "getconf" will likely remain a seperate command. The Solaris implementation of /usr/bin/getconf and the related libc functions are very special and delicate to handle (see my earler comment about compiling an application with XPG/C99 flags - this changes the behaviour of many libc functions including |sysconf()| and cannot be handled within the same library code, even if we |fork()| a new child process). ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
