Your message dated Fri, 24 Jan 2020 15:24:48 +0100 (CET) with message-id <[email protected]> and subject line ksh2020 vs. ksh93 has caused the Debian Bug report #948745, regarding ksh: offer both AT&T ksh93 and the new ksh2020 (separate packages) to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected] immediately.) -- 948745: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=948745 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: ksh Version: 2020.0.0-2 Severity: wishlist ksh2020 has many problems, such as speed reduction by 300%, which currently causes much uproar among its users in IRC. Newly introduced features additionally come with much breakage. Please change the ksh binary package to ship /usr/bin/ksh2020 instead of /usr/bin/ksh93, and reintroduce src:ksh (= 93u+20120801-3.4) as src:ksh93 building a ksh93 binary package with /usr/bin/ksh93 in it, for the time being. This would of course need to Replaces ksh (<< the first upload with /usr/bin/ksh2020 in it), and the other binaries will need consideration as well. For /etc/alternatives/ksh, we currently have: 20 ksh93 (containing ksh2020) 12 mksh 11 mksh-static (I think 10 was pdksh or ksh88?) I’d suggest this: 20 ksh93 (containing ksh93, from the ksh93 binary package) 18 ksh2020 (from the ksh binary package) 12 mksh 11 mksh-static Once ksh2020 has proven itself no regression, we can bump it to 30. (For the pdksh → mksh transition we took seven years, and if not for the request of the pdksh maintainer for mksh to take it over, I’d probably have suggested keeping it. Personally, as a shell developer, it is of great value to me to have as many different shells around as possible in order to see how other shells behave.) One of the ksh2020 developers who’s working for Red Hat is currently considering doing the same (offering both) in Fedora. This is being discussed in #ksh in Freenode IRC, although I’ll point the involved people to this bugreport once I have the number so they might write new info here. -- System Information: Debian Release: bullseye/sid APT prefers buildd-unstable APT policy: (500, 'buildd-unstable'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 5.4.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=C (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/lksh Init: sysvinit (via /sbin/init) Versions of packages ksh depends on: ii binfmt-support 2.2.0-2 ii libc6 2.29-7 ksh recommends no packages. ksh suggests no packages. -- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Version: 2020.0.0-3 (marking the bug as fixed in that version for the BTS) > ksh (2020.0.0-3) unstable; urgency=high > > * Rename binary to ksh2020 to support co-existence with ksh93 Thanks. Are you going to package ksh93 as well, or should I do that (I’m a DD and can do it easily)? bye, //mirabilos -- tarent solutions GmbH Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/ Tel: +49 228 54881-393 • Fax: +49 228 54881-235 HRB 5168 (AG Bonn) • USt-ID (VAT): DE122264941 Geschäftsführer: Dr. Stefan Barth, Kai Ebenrett, Boris Esser, Alexander Steeg ********** Mit der tarent Academy bieten wir auch Trainings und Schulungen in den Bereichen Softwareentwicklung, Agiles Arbeiten und Zukunftstechnologien an. Besuchen Sie uns auf www.tarent.de/academy. Wir freuen uns auf Ihren Kontakt. **********
--- End Message ---
