Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 08:30:08 -0800 From: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: KSH Alignment Message-ID: <20240223163008.AF7DF3F2@slippy.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: <787339cd-48e4-49bf-b96e-77aab06cedd8@FreeBSD.org> References: <20240223155440.16B282FF@slippy.cwsent.com> <787339cd-48e4-49bf-b96e-77aab06cedd8@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <787339cd-48e4-49bf-b96e-77aab06cedd8@FreeBSD.org>, Rodrigo Osorio w rites: > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > On 23/02/24 16:54, Cy Schubert wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Would there be any interest in either replacing shells/pdksh with > > shells/ksh as our default ksh dependency? Or Uses/ksh.mk to select a > > default ksh for ports? > > > > The reason I ask is, shells/ksh has its lineage from the original AT&T ksh > > (shells/ksh93) and is being actively developed (see shells/ksh-devel). > > shells/ksh upstream is also the ksh imported into and used by CDE > > (x11/cde*). > > > > My position is, I'd prefer a Uses/ksh.mk. If people are interested, I'm > > willing to put this task on my todo list. > > > > > Hi, > As long as there is no compatibilities issues, having a well > maintained ksh version makes a lot of sense. > pdksh wasn't update for ages and afaik, has no active developer. > > As the shells/pdksh maintainer you have my blessing. I'll put together a phabricator review over the next while to add Mk/Uses/ksh.mk. We'll probably need an exp-run too. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> FreeBSD UNIX: <cy@FreeBSD.org> Web: https://FreeBSD.org NTP: <cy@nwtime.org> Web: https://nwtime.org e^(i*pi)+1=0
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20240223163008.AF7DF3F2>