[MacPorts] #64181: ksh @2020.0.0_1 : typeset -f crashes the shell

[MacPorts]

#64181: ksh @2020.0.0_1 : typeset -f crashes the shell
-----------------------+--------------------
  Reporter:  posguy99  |      Owner:  (none)
      Type:  defect    |     Status:  new
  Priority:  Low       |  Milestone:
 Component:  ports     |    Version:  2.7.1
Resolution:            |   Keywords:  bigsur
      Port:  ksh       |
-----------------------+--------------------

Comment (by ryandesign):

 Replying to [comment:2 posguy99]:
 > Sorry, I wasn't clear.
 >
 >
 > {{{
 > $ cat $FPATH/ver
 > # Shortcut to show current shell version
 > function ver {
 >     printf 'ksh: %s\n' "${KSH_VERSION:-unknown}"
 > }
 > }}}
 >
 > I was showing there was at least one function there. :)  When you tested
 it, did you have a function definition present?

 Here's what I have:

 {{{
 $ /opt/local/bin/ksh
 [033[01;32m]u at h [033[01;36m]W $ [033[00m]cat $FPATH/ver
 cat: /ver: No such file or directory
 [033[01;32m]u at h [033[01;36m]W $ [033[00m]ver
 /opt/local/bin/ksh: ver: not found
 [033[01;32m]u at h [033[01;36m]W $ [033[00m]typeset -f
 [033[01;32m]u at h [033[01;36m]W $ [033[00m]
 }}}

 I have no idea if I have a function definition present. I guess I have
 whatever the ksh port provides when it is installed.

 > Regarding replacing ksh93 with ksh93u+m, well, there is probably value
 in having the ATT codebase there too, but Apple ships ksh93 in base right
 now.  I think it has a different set of patches, though.

 What Apple does or doesn't ship in macOS isn't of particular relevance
 when deciding what we should have in MacPorts. Apple has a habit of either
 not updating their bundled open source software for years and years (like
 bash for instance. though of course there is a (GPL-3) reason for that) or
 of removing it entirely at some point (like php as of macOS 12). So just
 because Apple ships it in macOS doesn't mean we shouldn't have it in
 MacPorts.

 The problem with our ksh93 port is that it does not build on OS X 10.9 or
 later, which makes it pretty useless. That was part of the motivation for
 switching to the now-aborted 2020 branch. If the new ksh93u+m builds on
 newer systems, that would again be motivation for switching that port to
 the new fork.

 Per the new fork's description, the old att ast repository

 > is no longer under active development

 and

 > we are confident at this point that 93u+m is already the least buggy
 branch of ksh93 ever released

 Those seem like good reasons to switch to it and leave the old original
 unbuildable ksh93 behind.

 If there are really users of OS X 10.8 and earlier who would prefer to
 keep using the original ksh93 rather than the new ksh93u+m, I guess we
 could make a separate ksh93um port, but I would kind of rather not.

 I see that Debian unstable is making this available as "ksh93u+m". The "+"
 character is not allowed in MacPorts port names though.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/64181#comment:3>
MacPorts <https://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for macOS