Regarding: "How to create a ksh93 package..."
Charles Wilson wrote:
>
> Maybe we need a top-level /opt directory? OTOH, I see no need for
> /usr/ast/* instead of "ksh, and the DLLs go in /usr/bin; stub
> executables that are ksh-replacements for "standard
On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 01:10:40AM +0100, Karsten Fleischer wrote:
>>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 execut
> -Original Message-
> From: Karsten Fleischer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Samstag, 30. Marz 2002 01:23
> To: 'Charles Wilson'
> Subject: RE: How to create a ksh93 package...
>
>
> > In Karsten's defense, I believe he has been more in
> >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
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> However, anything other than ksh needs to go through the standard
> package acceptance: http://cygwin.com/setup.html .
That sounds reasonable to this observer.
> I still have serious supportability concerns wrt including other
> programs with similar names as part
On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 04:56:16PM +0100, Karsten Fleischer wrote:
>>I'm not interested in AT&T's implementations of other utilities,
>>actually. Why would we include those? If they are a requirement for
>>ksh then I'm not sure I want ksh.
>
>And I'm not interested in using the GNU tools anymore
Oops, forgot to reply to the list...
> -Original Message-
> From: Karsten Fleischer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Freitag, 29. Marz 2002 17:55
> To: 'Charles Wilson'
> Subject: RE: How to create a ksh93 package...
>
>
> > > There are > 1
> I'm not interested in AT&T's implementations of other
> utilities, actually. Why would we include those? If they
> are a requirement for ksh then I'm not sure I want ksh.
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 SunO
First, read my other message (sent immediately prior to this one)
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 11:21:22AM -0500, Fleischer, Karsten (K.) wrote:
>
>>Would other executables that are not stub executables but alternative
>>version to existing commands go there, too? AT&T ha
Fleischer, Karsten (K.) wrote:
> I'd prefer the name /usr/libexec/ast then.
> Would other executables that are not stub executables but alternative version to
>existing commands go there, too?
> AT&T have own versions of dd, df, du, ed, expand, file, find, grep, od, pr, sed,
>sort, strings, et
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 11:21:22AM -0500, Fleischer, Karsten (K.) wrote:
>Would other executables that are not stub executables but alternative
>version to existing commands go there, too? AT&T have own versions of
>dd, df, du, ed, expand, file, find, grep, od, pr, sed, sort, strings,
>etc. The
> > I'd prefer a seperate dir not hidden too deep in the tree,
> where all
> > the ast utilities (including ksh) get installed, e.g.
> > /usr/ast/ bin
> >fun
> >lib
> >man
>
> Bad. With one exception, we've decided not to clutter the top level
> /usr
Fleischer, Karsten (K.) wrot
> Absolutely. This holds for the following utilities:
>
> basename cmp dirname head mkdirrev tee
> cat comm expr id mkfifo rm tty
> chgrpcp fmt join mv rmdiruname
> chmod
Sorry for breaking the thread indexing, but I haven't been subscribed to cygwin-apps,
until now and somehow I couldn't get the messages via
[EMAIL PROTECTED] So I doing a copy-and-paste from my web browser.
> >> part shall change with minor updates, so I think "ksh93m+-1" would
> >> be the cor
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 07:11:27PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Charles Wilson wrote:
>>I suggest that the ksh-specific binaries should just go into
>>/usr/bin/ksh/
>
>or maybe /usr/libexec/ksh/
That might be ok. At least it is hidden a couple of levels down
in the directory structure.
cgf
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 07:10:15PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> Do we really need to install other UNIX-like utilities? That will be
>> very confusing for users, I think. Can't ksh just use the existing
>utilties?
>
>Remember ksh has that in-process execution thing, where certain commands
Charles Wilson wrote:
> I suggest that the ksh-specific binaries should just go into
> /usr/bin/ksh/
or maybe /usr/libexec/ksh/
--Chuck
>> part shall change with minor updates, so I think "ksh93m+-1" would
>> be the correct name for a standalone Cygwin ksh93 package. Is
>> this OK with you?
>>
>
> I think so but I'll let the collective wisdom of cygwin-apps decide.
Sounds okay to me.
>> I have to think about how to name
[redirecting to cygwin-apps since this is a package issue]
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 12:34:55AM +0100, Karsten Fleischer wrote:
>Chris,
>
>I have successfully compiled ksh93 and almost all of the AT&T ast
>libraries and tools on a vanilla Cygwin 1.3.10 system.
>I am willing to create Cygwin setup co
19 matches
Mail list logo
