Darren J Moffat <Darren.Moffat at Sun.COM> wrote:
> All of the three that you listed may require changes to the script,
> that seems wrong because it is introducing incompatibility between pfksh
> and pfksh93 when the longer term goal is that ksh93 become the default.
>
> Now personally I recommend to people when writing scripts that use a
> profile never to depend on $PATH and always fully specify the paths.
If you use path names in a shell script rather than depending on $PATH,
you are bejond POSIX which does not deal with path names.
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
