On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 07:29:30PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
KSH_VERSION shouldn't be removed and if we want to tweak the value,
we need to leave the leading @(#)PD KSH alone, which is what
people will most likely match on. This is essentially the Mozilla/5.0
user agent issue...
On 2015-03-13, Patrik Lundin patrik.lundin@gmail.com wrote:
If ksh88 neither has KSH_VERSION or the .sh variables, could the
presence of KSH_VERSION mean this shell is at least ksh93 equivalent?
No.
As far as I can tell, pdksh actually pre-dates ksh93. I don't know
when KSH_VERSION was
Pascal Stumpf wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:25:48 + (UTC), Christian Weisgerber wrote:
On 2015-03-12, Patrik Lundin patrik.lundin@gmail.com wrote:
===
elif [ -n $KSH_VERSION ]; then
HACKING_DIR=$(dirname ${.sh.file})
===
.sh.file and related dot variables are a
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:48:56AM +0900, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:25:48 + (UTC), Christian Weisgerber wrote:
On 2015-03-12, Patrik Lundin patrik.lundin@gmail.com wrote:
===
elif [ -n $KSH_VERSION ]; then
HACKING_DIR=$(dirname ${.sh.file})
===
On 2015-03-12, Patrik Lundin patrik.lundin@gmail.com wrote:
===
elif [ -n $KSH_VERSION ]; then
HACKING_DIR=$(dirname ${.sh.file})
===
.sh.file and related dot variables are a ksh93 extension. I don't
think ksh88 supports this, so this is unportable even within the
ksh family. ...
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 09:00:27PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
ksh (and sh) have a version string embedded in them:
@(#)PD KSH v5.2.14 99/07/13.2
This is clearly a lie. We've added, removed, and fixed bugs and features since
then. I first noticed the lie in the man page, then saw that it's
Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com writes:
Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
Tristan Le Guern tlegu...@bouledef.eu writes:
On 02/16/2015 05:22 PM, Todd C. Miller wrote:
There are scripts that use KSH_VERSION to determine whether they
are being
On 2015/02/17 21:06, John Merriam wrote:
2) Remove it completely as proposed by tedu.
Some things in ports (like autoconf) check for the existence of
KSH_VERSION. The only thing I've noticed so far that checks for PD
KSH in the contents of KSH_VERSION is ksh.kshrc in base.
Le 17/02/2015 23:23, Ted Unangst a écrit :
Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
Tristan Le Guern tlegu...@bouledef.eu writes:
On 02/16/2015 05:22 PM, Todd C. Miller wrote:
There are scripts that use KSH_VERSION to determine whether they
are being run under ksh or a Bourne shell. That seems like
On 2015-02-17, Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com wrote:
pdksh is not the same thing as ksh88 or ksh93. And not the same thing as
mksh, which has grew features since it was based on pdksh from the
OpenBSD tree. And you may want to avoid known problems in some of those,
or use known nice features
On Tue, 17 Feb 2015, Adam Thompson wrote:
On 2015-02-17 08:06 PM, John Merriam wrote:
I definitely agree that the silliness of checking a version string to
possibly use some exotic or non-standard feature of a particular flavor of a
particular family of shells is not a good idea when
Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com writes:
Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
Tristan Le Guern tlegu...@bouledef.eu writes:
On 02/16/2015 05:22 PM, Todd C. Miller wrote:
There are scripts that use KSH_VERSION to determine whether they
are being run
Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com writes:
Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
Tristan Le Guern tlegu...@bouledef.eu writes:
On 02/16/2015 05:22 PM, Todd C. Miller wrote:
There are scripts that use KSH_VERSION to determine whether they
are being run under ksh or a Bourne shell. That seems
On 2/17/2015 7:40 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com writes:
[...]
So let's return to the top. What does PD KSH in KSH_VERSION mean? What does
one do differently if that string is present or missing?
sigh
pdksh is not the same thing as
Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com writes:
[...]
So let's return to the top. What does PD KSH in KSH_VERSION mean? What
does
one do differently if that string is present or missing?
sigh
pdksh is not the same thing as ksh88 or ksh93. And not the same thing as
mksh, which has grew
Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com writes:
[...]
So let's return to the top. What does PD KSH in KSH_VERSION mean? What
does
one do differently if that string is present or missing?
sigh
pdksh is not the same thing as ksh88 or ksh93. And not
On 2015-02-17 08:06 PM, John Merriam wrote:
I definitely agree that the silliness of checking a version string to
possibly use some exotic or non-standard feature of a particular
flavor of a particular family of shells is not a good idea when
writing a shell script. If you can't do what you
On 02/16/2015 05:22 PM, Todd C. Miller wrote:
There are scripts that use KSH_VERSION to determine whether they
are being run under ksh or a Bourne shell. That seems like a
reasonable thing to do. I don't really care what the version
number is set to. Using the OpenBSD version seems
Tristan Le Guern tlegu...@bouledef.eu writes:
On 02/16/2015 05:22 PM, Todd C. Miller wrote:
There are scripts that use KSH_VERSION to determine whether they
are being run under ksh or a Bourne shell. That seems like a
reasonable thing to do. I don't really care what the version
number is
On 2015-02-16 Mon 09:22 AM |, Todd C. Miller wrote:
There are scripts that use KSH_VERSION to determine whether they
are being run under ksh or a Bourne shell. That seems like a
reasonable thing to do. I don't really care what the version
number is set to.
Korn scripts here that drive dump
Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
Tristan Le Guern tlegu...@bouledef.eu writes:
On 02/16/2015 05:22 PM, Todd C. Miller wrote:
There are scripts that use KSH_VERSION to determine whether they
are being run under ksh or a Bourne shell. That seems like a
reasonable thing to do. I don't
There are scripts that use KSH_VERSION to determine whether they
are being run under ksh or a Bourne shell. That seems like a
reasonable thing to do. I don't really care what the version
number is set to. Using the OpenBSD version seems reasonable
and could be generated at build time.
- todd
Damien Miller wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2015, Ted Unangst wrote:
ksh (and sh) have a version string embedded in them:
@(#)PD KSH v5.2.14 99/07/13.2
This is clearly a lie. We've added, removed, and fixed bugs and features
since
then. I first noticed the lie in the man page, then saw
ksh (and sh) have a version string embedded in them:
@(#)PD KSH v5.2.14 99/07/13.2
This is clearly a lie. We've added, removed, and fixed bugs and features since
then. I first noticed the lie in the man page, then saw that it's also
exported via the environment and other places.
Instead of
Ted Unangst wrote:
ksh (and sh) have a version string embedded in them:
@(#)PD KSH v5.2.14 99/07/13.2
This is clearly a lie. We've added, removed, and fixed bugs and features since
then. I first noticed the lie in the man page, then saw that it's also
exported via the environment and other
On Sun, 15 Feb 2015, Ted Unangst wrote:
ksh (and sh) have a version string embedded in them:
@(#)PD KSH v5.2.14 99/07/13.2
This is clearly a lie. We've added, removed, and fixed bugs and features since
then. I first noticed the lie in the man page, then saw that it's also
exported via the
26 matches
Mail list logo
