Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote: >> Don Cragun wrote: >>> We also propose to replace the file /usr/xpg6/bin/xargs with a link to >>> /usr/bin/xargs, so that old programs that may have hardcoded the path >>> to the XPG6 version of xargs can continue to operate properly. >> Is this intended to be the architecture of reference for when we fully >> unify an xpg?/bin variant with its bin variant ? That is symlinks must >> be provided ? >> >> I'm okay if that is the case, I just want to know of this case is >> setting new case law. > > > I thought we never used the full pathnames and that setting $PATH was > the only supported way?
That is what I believe POSIX requires because the pathnames are vendor specific. However we know that people do stuff like /usr/xpg4/bin/id in script and my understanding was that the project team believed that those scripts shouldn't break (in this case it is xargs). I was asking if this is the stance we want to take or do we want to take the strict POSIX stance. In some ways I believe we already have case law to cover this in the case that moved /usr/proc/bin/* to /usr/bin. -- Darren J Moffat
