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

Bug#683838: release-notes: transition: pdksh → mksh

Hi Thorsten,

On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:48:49AM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Joost van Baal-Ilić dixit:
> >I propose this text instead:
> >
> >-----------
> >
> ><section id="mksh">
> >  <title>Pdksh to mksh transition</title>
>           ^
> I’d not capitalise here, as it’s a name/“trade”mark.
> If you really must, I guess PDksh would make more sense.

I propose:

<section id="mksh">
<title>The pdksh to mksh transition</title>

> >  <para>
> >    The Public Domain Korn Shell (<systemitem role="package">pdksh</systemitem>)
> >    package is being retired for the release after &releasename;, since
> >    <command>pdksh</command> is no longer maintained (it has last seen active
> >    development in 1999).
> >  </para>
> >  <para>
> >    The MirBSD Korn Shell (<systemitem role="package">mksh</systemitem>)
> >    package contains its successor; it has evolved from the Public Domain Korn Shell
> >    and has been kept up to date with the POSIX standard on the shell.
> >    In &debian; &releasename;,
> >    <systemitem role="package">pdksh</systemitem> is a transitional package
> >    using a variant of <systemitem role="package">mksh</systemitem> built with
> >    special compatibility options to provide a <command>pdksh</command> binary
> >    symlink.  This compatibility binary behaves a bit more like the traditional
> >    Public Domain Korn Shell then current <command>mksh</command>, it however
> Looking good so far.
> >    contains bugfixes so differs a bit.  Therefore, it is not a pure drop-in
> >    replacement, and you'll have to check your Korn Shell scripts before running
> >    them with current <command>pdksh</command> (or <command>mksh</command>).
> This lacks a suggestion to change the scripts to use #!/bin/mksh
> or at least #!/bin/lksh (the “compatibility binary”), because the
> transitional package will go away (and, if one invests effort into
> scripts, changing to mksh is better anyway, as that’s the one more
> closely aligned to POSIX).

I suggest:

 contains bugfixes so differs a bit.  Therefore, it is not a pure drop-in
 replacement.  So, you're advised to change your <code>#!/bin/pdksh</code> scripts to
 <code>#!/bin/mksh</code> and test them.  If the test fails, you're advised to fix
 your scripts.  If, for some reason, this is not possible, you can change
 them to <code>#!/bin/lksh</code> scripts, and test them again.  This test has more
 chances of succeeding without changing a lot of your code.  However,
 be aware at some point in the future the transitional package will get
 dropped from Debian.

(Note to self: check wether <code>#!/b/l</code> is sane DocBook XML.)

> ></para>
> ><para>
> >    The compatibility binary is not suitable for interactive
> >    use, so as system administrator, adjust the login shell of your Korn Shell
> >    users.  For minimal service interruption, do this before the upgrade of
> >    the O.S: manually install the <systemitem role="package">mksh</systemitem>
> >    package and change the login and/or interactive shells of users that use
> >    <command>pdksh</command> to <command>mksh</command>.  Furthermore, in order
> >    to continue functionality like tab completion, copy
> >    <filename>/etc/skel/.mkshrc</filename> into their home directories.
> ></para>
> Good, except tab completion always “just works”; the thing
> which /etc/skel/.mkshrc provides are some shell functions
> like pushd/popd/dirs and a nice PS1 (shell prompt). Neither
> of these is a regression, so “in order to continue” is also
> wrong.

I suggest:

 <command>pdksh</command> to <command>mksh</command>.  Furthermore, you're
 suggested to copy <filename>/etc/skel/.mkshrc</filename> into their home
 directories: this provides some shell functions like <command>pushd</command>,
 <command>popd</command> and <command>dirs</command> and a nice <code>PS1</code>
 (shell prompt).

Thorsten: what do you think?  Feel free to reply via IRC.



there's a TON of people who breath air, but that doesn't mean they're qualified
professionals when it comes to wind-powered electric-generator engineering.
http://mdcc.cx/                               --http://lwn.net/Articles/408052/

Reply to: