Joerg Schilling wrote: > 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.
That maybe so but if you are depending on Solaris RBAC to run commands with privilege you are using functionality that POSIX doesn't define anyway. -- Darren J Moffat
