Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
>
> >Darren J Moffat wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> The only way I think I can accept the creation of pfksh93 (and by the
> >> implications of this case this code base will be come that for
> >> /usr/bin/pfksh at some point) is if this case at least makes the current
> >> situation no worse than it already is
> >
> >The situnation is IMO better than the old ksh since there are now
> >multiple ways to handle the "builtin vs. pfexec" issue in a clean and
> >predictable way, see below.
>
> I also intend to fix the pfexec issue in a better way (make it more
> transparent). (But the ksh93 builtins for chown and such
> do complicate that somewhat further)
Casper, as we did have a discussion for integrating a root-less cdrecord
some time before, could you please elaborate how?
>From my impression, the best solution would be to either make all shells
pfexec aware by default or to find a solution that works without this hook.
This is of course a view that is independent from ksh93 integration.
J?rg
--
EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
