Bug#764401: clarity please

[Thorsten Glaser <tg@mirbsd.de>]

Nicholas Bamber dixit:

> 1.) If ksh is installed then ksh should be in /etc/shells. (#790118)

I don’t think so. Users should be getting ksh93 or mksh (or, in
earlier releases, even pdksh), but not an alternative.

> 2.) If ksh is not installed but mksh is and ksh links to mksh via alternatives,
> then the ksh man page must also link to the mksh man page

Agreed, don’t we do that already? I was under the impression
all binary alternatives have a manpage slave. *checks*

case $1 in
configure)
        update-alternatives --install /bin/ksh ksh /bin/mksh 12 \
            --slave /usr/bin/ksh usr.bin.ksh /bin/mksh \
            --slave /usr/share/man/man1/ksh.1.gz ksh.1.gz \
            /usr/share/man/man1/mksh.1.gz

So, yes, we do.

> 3.) mksh IS in this situation being confused for ksh.

Yes, but because of…

> 5.) mksh would effectively be Providing ksh, but that this would not be
> declared.

… this is not a problem.

> Other questions:
> 1. As I said I can upload for you.

Thanks.

> 2. In coming back to Debian are you offering to work with Dominik or trying to
> wrest the WNPP bug from his hands? Since the package is currently owned by the
> Debian QA group I am not sure if you can do that.

Dominik and I have opposing offices on the same floor, so we can (and
did) talk, which means that, yes, I can do that ;-)

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
„Cool, /usr/share/doc/mksh/examples/uhr.gz ist ja ein Grund,
mksh auf jedem System zu installieren.“
	-- XTaran auf der OpenRheinRuhr, ganz begeistert
(EN: “[…]uhr.gz is a reason to install mksh on every system.”)