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 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. > >> > > >> > Same thing for me: I don't care about the content of this variable, just > >> > about its presence. The same for BASH_VERSION or ZSH_VERSION. > >> > >> Maybe you don't, but our ksh isn't the only ksh around. > >> > >> Removing "PD KSH" from KSH_VERSION would just break scripts that probe > >> the content of this variable. > > > > 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 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 in others, whether it is in scripts or your > dotfiles. But for this obviously you have to know which shell you're > using. > > Your proposal to remove the variable or to change significantly its > content breaks other people's way to use ksh.
I'm asking specifically what those features are. As things stand, we need to make a list of features *not* to implement, lest people's version tests become incorrect.
