Re: astksh review

[Nicholas Wourms <nwourms at netscape dot net>]

alcocer@helixdigital.com wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 09:09:46AM +0100, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
>
> > I created the ksh symlink so users wouldn't have to edit their shebang 
> > lines to point to `/bin/pdksh' but now we have the proper ksh (available) 
> > I suppose I could get rid of it. What's the feeling?
> >
> > We could do one of
> >
> >  1. Remove the ksh symlink from the pdksh package.
> >  2. Rename ksh.exe (in astksh) to astksh.exe and have a ksh symlink to
> >     astksh.exe
> >  3. Maybe only two options. :-)
> >
> > these?
>
>
> How about:
>     4. Deprecate the pdksh package.
>
> Now that we have the real, honest-to-goodness ksh, do we really need
> pdksh? Just a suggestion...

I totally agree, there is no reason why pdksh should be the default ksh. 
 Let users make the symlink themselves.  We should always allow "The 
Real Thing" to trump some knockoff...

[Still trying to dig out from under a backlog...]