On 3/3/07, DJ Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > I have no problem rolling them into one package. I'd kind of prefer > > that we pull all the downloads from upstream, but if it's too big of a > > PITA, then whatever. Looking at the fedora spec, it looks like they > > unpack all the tarballs and then just do `./bin/package "read"' then > > `./bin/package "make"'. Then they install the files by hand. > > > > http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/ksh/ksh.spec?view=markup > > > > > That was exactly what I had planned using the debian package, I didn't > realize it was that simple. If it's just two downloads, then that > should be fine. Fedora link above shows three??? Also, I have not seen > a need for a gcc patch.
I should be clear that I haven't actually tried to do anything I'm talking about, so I can't say why they're doing what they're doing. > > Another option would be to use pdksh. Apparently it's not as fully > > featured as AT&T's ksh, but if all we're using it for is bootstrapping > > JDK, then maybe that's enough. > > > > http://web.cs.mun.ca/~michael/pdksh/ > > > I think I'd prefer the original AT&T ksh noting the read limitation in > pdksh. I rarely use that syntax, prefering backtics or $(..), but I > could see it causing problems for some. I'll give it a go anyway. JDK > build is only 12 SBU now! I actually started reading after I wrote that email. Let's try to use AT&T's unless it's a huge pain. That pdksh is from 1999, and with the limitations... I wouldn't bother unless you're stuck. JDK in 12 SBU?! I may actually try to build it now. How did that happen? -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
