Re: Question about pdksh

[Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>]

Martin Schulze writes ("Question about pdksh"):
...
> somebody ha asked me why pdksh is located in /bin instead of
> /bin/sh. He referred to the FSSTND. Shall I package pdksh so that it
> only provides /usr/bin/ksh or shall it provide both /usr/bin/ksh _and_
> /bin/ksh?

We already have a Bournelike shell in /bin, so we don't need ksh there
too.  Therefore, the actual binary should be in /usr/bin/ksh.

It *may* be useful for you to provide a symlink in /bin - are there
significant numbers of ksh scripts out there which start #!/bin/ksh ?

> I would like to have an answer from one of the leader.
> 
> Quoting the FSSTND:
> "
>      If /bin/sh is Bash, then /bin/sh should be a symbolic or hard link
>      to /bin/bash since Bash behaves differently when called as sh or
>      bash.  pdksh, which may be the /bin/sh on install disks, should
>      likewise be arranged with /bin/sh being a symlink to /bin/ksh.  The
>      use of a symbolic link in these cases allows users to easily see
>      that /bin/sh is not a true Bourne shell.
> "
> 
> It's called /bin/ksh. This is the only appropriate place I found.

I read that FSSTND extract as saying that if /bin/sh is ksh (eg on an
install disk) then it should be a link to /bin/ksh.

I don't think it says that ksh should be in /bin when it's not /bin/sh.

Ian.