> >And I'm not interested in using the GNU tools anymore on Cygwin, since > >I have the AT&T tools now. I'm using them on SunOS, HP-UX, U/Win and
> >now on Cygwin, too. > > That's fine, but you realize that this sort of runs counter > to the purpose of the Cygwin project, right? Hmm, maybe I see the Cygwin project from another POV. The Cygwin kernel is most important, the tools users choose are another thing. > >I don't know how many people out there would be using them, > though. Of > >course they are _not_ a requirement for ksh. I wonder what made you > >think that? > > Scan your eyes upwards to the subject. Notice the lack of plural. I'm aware of that. Maybe we should change the subject line. > You did mention packages in your email but you still kept > referring to the whole thing as a "package". The original AT&T thing is a single package. > Regardless, this isn't what I was asking for. I just asked > you if you could support ksh. I wasn't expecting a whole > slew of other things as part of the deal. OK, I'll support ksh. Nothing else. Not even the stub executables. Karsten
