Description of problem: As of writing, the ksh package only provides alternatives switching for /usr/bin/ksh, but not for /usr/bin/rksh. But given that the mksh package shall provide as per bug #1879002 /usr/bin/ksh via alternatives switching as well, this will include /usr/bin/rksh in the future, too. To avoid conflicts between the ksh and mksh packages, the ksh package should introduce alternatives switching for /usr/bin/rksh. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): ksh-20120801-251.fc34 Actual results: /usr/bin/rksh is not handled via alternatives switching. Expected results: /usr/bin/rksh being handled via alternatives switching.
Vincent, can you please provide some status update?
Sorry for the delayed response - I was on PTO. I'll fix it (as soon as possible).
It was recommended to me to ask @mhlavink what he thinks about this change? Also, would it be enough to implement it in a way similar to Robert's commit in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mksh/c/78ce37d017a96225c12f3242461d993f22b7dcc0 ?
While I don't see real benefit, as alternatives was implemented as a tool to prevent breaking old scripts, because some expected ksh to be ksh88 some ksh93 and AFAIK this does not apply to rksh, there is no real downside and it's easy to do, so why not. Let users decide if/how they want to use it. There is already alternatives switching in ksh, so you'd just need to expand that.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 34 development cycle. Changing version to 34.
dist-git commit: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ksh/c/8eb8a66ae9c94a02c06d56f19b73bea6bc8c843a
Vincent, will this also be merged to RHEL 9 (given it's unclear to me whether branching already happened or not)?
I think so. It should be picked from Fedora 34.
FEDORA-2021-e5dae8650b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e5dae8650b
(In reply to Vincent Mihalkovič from comment #6) > dist-git commit: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ksh/c/8eb8a66ae9c94a02c06d56f19b73bea6bc8c843a Shouldn't that be rksh-man rather duplicate ksh-man? I thought the name must be unique, because it gets the symlink name in /etc/alternatives/?
(In reply to Kamil Dudka from comment #8) > I think so. It should be picked from Fedora 34. Sorry, my understanding was wrong. There is actually no guarantee that the fix for this bug will land into RHEL-9 at this point.
(In reply to Kamil Dudka from comment #11) > Sorry, my understanding was wrong. There is actually no guarantee that the > fix for this bug will land into RHEL-9 at this point. Cross-filed case 02887507 at the Red Hat customer portal (also to cover comment #10).
(In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #10) Thanks, I'll fix it.
FEDORA-2021-e5dae8650b has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
(In reply to Vincent Mihalkovič from comment #13) > (In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #10) > Thanks, I'll fix it. Kind ping? :)
FEDORA-2021-8faba9db22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-8faba9db22
I believe this has been fixed: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ksh/c/6cb38018 (rawhide) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ksh/c/619b07c4 (f34)
Sorry, for not giving commit (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ksh/c/619b07c4) link in time, and thank you Kamil for quick reply.
Thank you both, Kamil and Vincent!
FEDORA-2021-8faba9db22 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.