`port search ksh' currently yields the following 4 korn shell packages:
ksh @2020.0.0_1 (shells)
the KornShell UNIX shell and programming language (stable version)
ksh-devel @20200125-g43d1853 (shells)
the KornShell UNIX shell and programming language (development version)
ksh93 @93u+20120801_2 (shells)
the AT&T KornShell
ksh93-devel @93u+m-1.0.0-beta.2 (shells)
continued development of the AT&T KornShell
in view of the current naming scheme (_and_ info string denoting it as "stable version"), the unwary
user very probably would wrongly conclude that the first one, `ksh @2020.0.0_1', is the canonical
"true" korn shell to install. but it is not...
I wonder if the package names (and descriptions) should not be somewhat modified since the ksh93u+m
project now has done it's first release with many bug fixes relative to ksh93u+, and given the
project's aim to just fix existing bugs in 93u+, might be validly viewed as true fully compatible
successor to 93u+ (which ksh2020 most definitely is not). it also seems that linux distros are
partly already moving in that way (adopting 93u+m as default ksh).
so I would find it preferable to either denote ksh93@93u+20120801_2 (the last official ksh release)
or possibly already ksh93-devel@93u+m-1.0.1 as "ksh" and/or to rename the others to `ksh2020` (which
identifies that (abandoned) project to those who care).
not a big deal but I think it would help to avoid possible confusion.
thank you
joerg
ps: and if I recall correctly `KornShell' was meant to denote the language while the shell's name is
"Korn Shell" ;).
