[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Epoch bump request for ksh

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 05:18:13PM +0530, Anuradha Weeraman wrote:
> As a result of a revert of v2020 of ksh last year, the current version
> on sid for ksh is as follows:
> 2020.0.0+really93u+20120801-10
> With the next upgrade, we're looking to move to the 93u+m community
> maintained distribution that has a different versioning scheme (starting
> with 1.0.0-beta.1).

I was curious about why, and while I'm neither a ksh dev or user, in the
context of Debian packaging it doesn't seem so simple. I'm trying not to
step on your toes, or dredge up interpersonal conflict.


The impression I got is that there are at least 3 projects making claim
to "ksh93" going forwards. 93u+2012 is the last known stable, compatible
version that has been reverted to and, crucially, has been shipped in
all Debian stable releases. There seems to be community demand and
distro maintainers support for collaborating on keeping the build system
working on modern systems, which will not be merged back into the att
repo - do you know if this has happened, where the fork can be found?


Then there appears to be this 93u+m project publishing essentially v2020
as 1.0.0 beta, tagged as 'v1.0.0-beta.1'. It's release notes say "This
new fork is called ksh 93u+m as a permanent nod to its origin". It is
making more invasive fixes to the codebase and trimming unused
components, but there are some concerns noted over its backwards
compatibility with 40 years of scripts.


> However, I would like to request feedback to move to the following
> version with a bump of the epoch:
> 1:93u+m-1.0.0~beta.1-1

1) If there are possible edge-case compatibility issues, have you
considered a new source package and use of the alternatives system? This
would let Debian users choose between the two options for their use case
- maintaining existing systems, or writing new ksh scripts.

2) If you do go ahead with switching to the community distribution, then
"93u+m" is part of the name, not the version number, so I'd suggest:


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: