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