Martin,
> On 5/6/06, Mike Kupfer <mike.kupfer at sun.com> wrote:
> > Rainer Orth is working on some packaging changes, so that we can get a
> > clean package build with OpenSolaris. One of the packages that
> > currently has problems is SUNWcsu, because it contains ksh. Rainer is
> > proposing to split ksh out into its own package, to be called either
> > SUNWksh or SUNWksh88. I favor SUNWksh88, but I wanted to mention it
> > here in case someone has a good reason for making it SUNWksh.
>
> I think neither SUNWksh or SUNWksh88 are good candidates for package
> names. Why? Because SUNWksh is unsuited for the old korn shell which
I never really liked this, anyway.
> is hopefully being replaced by ksh93 soon (version clash, the same
> package may contain different versions of the shell. It'll may also
> force ksh93 to choose another package name which may be an ill fated
> package name choice, too). SUNWksh88 is unsuited because Sun ksh is
So why not use SUNWksh93 for ksh93?
> not compatible to ksh88. Based on the discussion around the oksh name
> I would propose calling the package SUNWoldksh or SUNWoksh.
Do you have any pointers on how big the differences are between Solaris
/usr/bin/ksh and ksh88? I'm not sure this is a problem, since there will
most likely never be a `real' ksh88 in Solaris.
The problem with SUNWoldksh/SUNWoksh is that what is new today may become
old in the future (like ksh93 becoming old with ksh07 or some such), so I
think it's wiser to use `absolute' names than relative ones with new or old
included in the name. And before you ask, oawk and nawk are bad for just
the same reason ;-)
Rainer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Faculty of Technology, Bielefeld University
