From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38077) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dC7ej-0008NF-Sj for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 20 May 2017 12:55:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dC7eg-0002Q3-Qw for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 20 May 2017 12:55:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:54533) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dC7eg-0002P8-O9 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 20 May 2017 12:55:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dC7eg-0006SW-99 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 20 May 2017 12:55:02 -0400 Subject: bug#26984: closed (Re: bug#26984: Add loksh (ported OpenBSD pdksh)) Resent-Message-ID: From: user@abyayala.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me In-Reply-To: (GNU bug Tracking System's message of "Sat, 20 May 2017 00:43:02 +0000") References: <87efvk9x4m.fsf@fastmail.com> <20170518182047.qxwdpsy2edqltyg4@abyayala> Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 09:19:32 +0000 Message-ID: <87shjzc2cb.fsf@abyayala.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: mbakke@fastmail.com Cc: 26984@debbugs.gnu.org help-debbugs@gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System) writes: > ng0 writes: > >> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add loksh. >> >> * gnu/packages/shells.scm (loksh): New variable. > > Thanks for this patch! I've used this shell a lot on OpenBSD. One > thing it does better than bash is that ^W stops at "/" and other > boundaries, not just spaces! > > I've applied it with a slight adjustment to description: >> By the way, this can not be used for the test suite in graphviz. >> There are many ksh implementations, and this is not the one >> the tests accept. Or at least its ksh93 checks fail ;) > > Maybe they need "mksh"? Another popular Korn Shell :) Maybe. It must be a ksh93 implementation, most implementations are ksh88. I don't know enough about ksh to know if a shell is compatible. I executed ksh and ran the lines which test for ksh88 or ksh93. It failed.