On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 07:29:30PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>
> KSH_VERSION shouldn't be removed and if we want to tweak the value,
> we need to leave the leading "@(#)PD KSH" alone, which is what
> people will most likely match on. This is essentially the "Mozilla/5.0"
> user agent iss
On 2015-03-13, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> If ksh88 neither has KSH_VERSION or the .sh variables, could the
> presence of KSH_VERSION mean "this shell is at least ksh93 equivalent"?
No.
As far as I can tell, pdksh actually pre-dates ksh93. I don't know
when KSH_VERSION was added--possibly at the tim
Pascal Stumpf wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:25:48 + (UTC), Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> > On 2015-03-12, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> >
> > >===
> > > elif [ -n "$KSH_VERSION" ]; then
> > > HACKING_DIR=$(dirname "${.sh.file}")
> > >===
> >
> > .sh.file and related dot variables are a ksh93
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:48:56AM +0900, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:25:48 + (UTC), Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> > On 2015-03-12, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> >
> > >===
> > > elif [ -n "$KSH_VERSION" ]; then
> > > HACKING_DIR=$(dirname "${.sh.file}")
> > >===
> >
> > .sh.f
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:25:48 + (UTC), Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2015-03-12, Patrik Lundin wrote:
>
> >===
> > elif [ -n "$KSH_VERSION" ]; then
> > HACKING_DIR=$(dirname "${.sh.file}")
> >===
>
> .sh.file and related dot variables are a ksh93 extension. I don't
> think ksh88 suppo
On 2015-03-12, Patrik Lundin wrote:
>===
> elif [ -n "$KSH_VERSION" ]; then
> HACKING_DIR=$(dirname "${.sh.file}")
>===
.sh.file and related dot variables are a ksh93 extension. I don't
think ksh88 supports this, so this is unportable even within the
ksh family. ... Actually, ksh88 doesn't
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 09:00:27PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> ksh (and sh) have a version string embedded in them:
> @(#)PD KSH v5.2.14 99/07/13.2
>
> This is clearly a lie. We've added, removed, and fixed bugs and features since
> then. I first noticed the lie in the man page, then saw that it's
>Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
>> "Ted Unangst" writes:
>>
>> > Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
>> >> Tristan Le Guern writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On 02/16/2015 05:22 PM, Todd C. Miller wrote:
>> >> >> There are scripts that use KSH_VERSION to determine whether they
>> >> >> are being run und
Le 17/02/2015 23:23, Ted Unangst a écrit :
> Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
>> Tristan Le Guern writes:
>>
>>> On 02/16/2015 05:22 PM, Todd C. Miller wrote:
There are scripts that use KSH_VERSION to determine whether they
are being run under ksh or a Bourne shell. That seems like a
>>>
On Tue, 17 Feb 2015, Adam Thompson wrote:
> On 2015-02-17 08:06 PM, John Merriam wrote:
> > I definitely agree that the silliness of checking a version string to
> > possibly use some exotic or non-standard feature of a particular flavor of a
> > particular family of shells is not a good idea when
On 2015-02-17, "Ted Unangst" wrote:
>> pdksh is not the same thing as ksh88 or ksh93. And not the same thing as
>> mksh, which has grew features since it was based on pdksh from the
>> OpenBSD tree. And you may want to avoid known problems in some of those,
>> or use known nice features in others
On 2015/02/17 21:06, John Merriam wrote:
> 2) Remove it completely as proposed by tedu.
Some things in ports (like autoconf) check for the existence of
KSH_VERSION. The only thing I've noticed so far that checks for "PD
KSH" in the contents of KSH_VERSION is ksh.kshrc in base.
On 2015-02-17 08:06 PM, John Merriam wrote:
I definitely agree that the silliness of checking a version string to
possibly use some exotic or non-standard feature of a particular
flavor of a particular family of shells is not a good idea when
writing a shell script. If you can't do what you wa
On 2/17/2015 7:40 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
"Ted Unangst" writes:
[...]
So let's return to the top. What does "PD KSH" in KSH_VERSION mean? What does
one do differently if that string is present or missing?
sigh
pdksh is not the same thing as ksh88 or ksh93. A
Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
> "Ted Unangst" writes:
>
> [...]
>
> >> > So let's return to the top. What does "PD KSH" in KSH_VERSION mean? What
> >> > does
> >> > one do differently if that string is present or missing?
> >>
> >> sigh
> >>
> >> pdksh is not the same thing as ksh88 or ksh9
"Ted Unangst" writes:
[...]
>> > So let's return to the top. What does "PD KSH" in KSH_VERSION mean? What
>> > does
>> > one do differently if that string is present or missing?
>>
>> sigh
>>
>> pdksh is not the same thing as ksh88 or ksh93. And not the same thing as
>> mksh, which has grew f
Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
> "Ted Unangst" writes:
>
> > Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
> >> Tristan Le Guern writes:
> >>
> >> > On 02/16/2015 05:22 PM, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> >> >> There are scripts that use KSH_VERSION to determine whether they
> >> >> are being run under ksh or a Bou
"Ted Unangst" writes:
> Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
>> Tristan Le Guern writes:
>>
>> > On 02/16/2015 05:22 PM, Todd C. Miller wrote:
>> >> There are scripts that use KSH_VERSION to determine whether they
>> >> are being run under ksh or a Bourne shell. That seems like a
>> >> reasonable t
Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
> Tristan Le Guern writes:
>
> > On 02/16/2015 05:22 PM, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> >> There are scripts that use KSH_VERSION to determine whether they
> >> are being run under ksh or a Bourne shell. That seems like a
> >> reasonable thing to do. I don't really care
Tristan Le Guern writes:
> On 02/16/2015 05:22 PM, Todd C. Miller wrote:
>> There are scripts that use KSH_VERSION to determine whether they
>> are being run under ksh or a Bourne shell. That seems like a
>> reasonable thing to do. I don't really care what the version
>> number is set to. Usin
On 02/16/2015 05:22 PM, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> There are scripts that use KSH_VERSION to determine whether they
> are being run under ksh or a Bourne shell. That seems like a
> reasonable thing to do. I don't really care what the version
> number is set to. Using the OpenBSD version seems reaso
On 2015-02-16 Mon 09:22 AM |, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> There are scripts that use KSH_VERSION to determine whether they
> are being run under ksh or a Bourne shell. That seems like a
> reasonable thing to do. I don't really care what the version
> number is set to.
Korn scripts here that drive du
There are scripts that use KSH_VERSION to determine whether they
are being run under ksh or a Bourne shell. That seems like a
reasonable thing to do. I don't really care what the version
number is set to. Using the OpenBSD version seems reasonable
and could be generated at build time.
- todd
Damien Miller wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2015, Ted Unangst wrote:
>
> > ksh (and sh) have a version string embedded in them:
> > @(#)PD KSH v5.2.14 99/07/13.2
> >
> > This is clearly a lie. We've added, removed, and fixed bugs and features
> > since
> > then. I first noticed the lie in the man page
On Sun, 15 Feb 2015, Ted Unangst wrote:
> ksh (and sh) have a version string embedded in them:
> @(#)PD KSH v5.2.14 99/07/13.2
>
> This is clearly a lie. We've added, removed, and fixed bugs and features since
> then. I first noticed the lie in the man page, then saw that it's also
> exported via
Ted Unangst wrote:
> ksh (and sh) have a version string embedded in them:
> @(#)PD KSH v5.2.14 99/07/13.2
>
> This is clearly a lie. We've added, removed, and fixed bugs and features since
> then. I first noticed the lie in the man page, then saw that it's also
> exported via the environment and o
ksh (and sh) have a version string embedded in them:
@(#)PD KSH v5.2.14 99/07/13.2
This is clearly a lie. We've added, removed, and fixed bugs and features since
then. I first noticed the lie in the man page, then saw that it's also
exported via the environment and other places.
Instead of trying
27 matches
Mail list logo
