On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 10:16:00AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > Hmm. If the project refers to itself as 93u+m does it make sense to package > it as ksh instead of something like ksh93u+m? This reminds me of when debian > first packaged openssh as "ssh" because that's what the predecessor package > and the binary were called but in the long run renamed it to "openssh". (And > with a new name the version/epoch question is moot.)
That's certainly an option and I agree it would simplify things from a versioning standpoint. However, I feel that given ksh93u+ is unmaintained upstream, existing users of src:ksh stands to gain from the defect fixes and improvements made without having to switch to a new package given that ksh93u+m is maintaining the same code base that would have been otherwise unmaintained. This would avoid having to maintain two packages, one which is unmaintained upstream and one that is. Open to your suggestions on the way forward. Anuradha
