astksh review

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Mon, 19 May 2003, Dario Alcocer 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...

No.  pdksh is small, intuitive, easy to understand, and builds OOTB with
no special procedures, whereas the build procedure Karsten described for
the AST ksh sounds painful and non-obvious.  I'm not downplaying the AST
ksh package, but I think pdksh should be offered as well.  Besides, what's
the harm (as long as sdescs and ldescs are accurate)?
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor@watson.ibm.com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route
to the bathroom is a major career booster."  -- Patrick Naughton