[arch-general] Why not mksh provides("ksh")?

[G. Richard Bellamy]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Thorsten Töpper
<atsutane at freethoughts.de> wrote:
> As long as I don't make a problem
> for another TU or a developer I stay to the current setup of the
> package, when I add a ksh symlink to the package stating it also
> provides the ksh I take users the chance to install the original ksh
> and the mksh. There are users who don't want an extended shell because
> they work with the original since a lot of years on different systems.


I'm frankly embarassed I didn't think of this, and withdraw my
question. Especially given it was motivated by my convenience, not any
kind of technical reasoning.