Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 20:50:12 -0800 From: Chris <portmaster@bsdforge.com> To: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: KSH Alignment Message-ID: <724b65591c40de011b503069ea13da24@bsdforge.com> In-Reply-To: <20240223163008.AF7DF3F2@slippy.cwsent.com> References: <20240223155440.16B282FF@slippy.cwsent.com> <787339cd-48e4-49bf-b96e-77aab06cedd8@FreeBSD.org> <20240223163008.AF7DF3F2@slippy.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2024-02-23 08:30, Cy Schubert wrote: > 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. Looking forward to it. Thanks for volunteering to do this. --Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?724b65591c40de011b503069ea13da24>