Okay removing Kenneth as he clearly does not want to be involved.Please could Thorsten and Dominik please work out who will be responsible for mksh in Debian? Can you work together if that makes sense? I can sign and upload if necessary.
I have an issue with this: > I answered your original mail in the meantime. The idea is that, > when ksh93 is not available, mksh may provide /bin/ksh, but it > should not do so otherwise. It seems to me one of the following hold:1.) The current ksh package IS ksh. mksh is a different (albeit similar) package. In this case ksh should never be a link to mksh. 2.) ksh93 and mksh are alternative implementations of ksh (with subtle differences that should be documented). In this case both can coexist on Debian but one (potentially either but by default ksh93) should assume the role of ksh.
On 28/10/15 14:19, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Nicholas Bamber dixit:Could we get some clarity on this bug report please? I am considering adoptingYeah, some people have a life and don’t answer eMails 24/7…the 'ksh' package and if I do I either want to adopt mksh as well, or work closely with the mksh owner.Mh. I’m maintaining mksh in Debian via sponsors currently, even if the package doesn’t formally say so, as I left the project. I answered your original mail in the meantime. The idea is that, when ksh93 is not available, mksh may provide /bin/ksh, but it should not do so otherwise. bye, //mirabilos