Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1893919 - Add alternatives switching for /usr/bin/rksh
Summary: Add alternatives switching for /usr/bin/rksh
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: ksh
Version: 34
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Vincent Mihalkovič
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-11-03 00:28 UTC by Robert Scheck
Modified: 2021-03-25 00:19 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version: ksh-20120801-254.fc34 ksh-20120801-255.fc34
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-03-25 00:19:01 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Robert Scheck 2020-11-03 00:28:59 UTC 
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.
Comment 1 Robert Scheck 2020-12-27 14:19:56 UTC 
Vincent, can you please provide some status update?
Comment 2 Vincent Mihalkovič 2021-01-04 09:15:55 UTC 
Sorry for the delayed response - I was on PTO. I'll fix it (as soon as possible).
Comment 3 Vincent Mihalkovič 2021-01-11 08:19:10 UTC 
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 ?
Comment 4 Michal Hlavinka 2021-01-11 10:14:02 UTC 
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.
Comment 5 Ben Cotton 2021-02-09 16:16:59 UTC 
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 34 development cycle.
Changing version to 34.
Comment 6 Vincent Mihalkovič 2021-02-26 11:05:04 UTC 
dist-git commit: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ksh/c/8eb8a66ae9c94a02c06d56f19b73bea6bc8c843a
Comment 7 Robert Scheck 2021-02-26 11:16:19 UTC 
Vincent, will this also be merged to RHEL 9 (given it's unclear to me whether branching already happened or not)?
Comment 8 Kamil Dudka 2021-03-01 13:06:42 UTC 
I think so.  It should be picked from Fedora 34.
Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2021-03-01 17:03:59 UTC 
FEDORA-2021-e5dae8650b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e5dae8650b
Comment 10 Robert Scheck 2021-03-03 15:29:14 UTC 
(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/?
Comment 11 Kamil Dudka 2021-03-08 07:51:08 UTC 
(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.
Comment 12 Robert Scheck 2021-03-08 20:13:37 UTC 
(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).
Comment 13 Vincent Mihalkovič 2021-03-10 16:34:23 UTC 
(In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #10)
Thanks, I'll fix it.
Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2021-03-19 17:39:06 UTC 
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.
Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2021-03-19 19:56:17 UTC 
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.
Comment 16 Robert Scheck 2021-03-24 01:11:00 UTC 
(In reply to Vincent Mihalkovič from comment #13)
> (In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #10)
> Thanks, I'll fix it.

Kind ping? :)
Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2021-03-24 09:11:13 UTC 
FEDORA-2021-8faba9db22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-8faba9db22
Comment 18 Kamil Dudka 2021-03-24 09:13:27 UTC 
I believe this has been fixed:

    https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ksh/c/6cb38018 (rawhide)
    https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ksh/c/619b07c4 (f34)
Comment 19 Vincent Mihalkovič 2021-03-24 09:20:18 UTC 
Sorry, for not giving commit (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ksh/c/619b07c4) link in time, and thank you Kamil for quick reply.
Comment 20 Robert Scheck 2021-03-24 14:10:45 UTC 
Thank you both, Kamil and Vincent!
Comment 21 Fedora Update System 2021-03-25 00:19:01 UTC 
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.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.