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.”)