Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/03/27/18:42:58
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 compatible packages for these and to
maintain them in future.
But, I see some problems in providing a "complete package" as defined on
http://cygwin.com/setup.html.
Package naming scheme:
AT&T offers different versions of the ast software, namely ast-ksh,
ast-base, and ast-open. Ast-ksh only includes ksh and supporting
libraries, ast-base has some more tools and includes ast-ksh, ast-open
is the full package and includes ast-base.
Their versioning scheme is based on dates, e.g. ast-ksh.2002-03-17 is
the latest ast-ksh release.
I'm going to break up their packaging scheme for Cygwin a bit, e.g. omit
man pages that come with ast-ksh, because those are AT&T relevant and
might confuse Cygwin users.
The internal ksh93 version is now "M 1993-12-28 m+". AFAIK only the last
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 have to think about how to name the other packages and where to put
the actual binaries (AT&T have their own implementations of all the
common UNIX utilities but I think those shouldn't go into /bin by
default because they would be overwriting Cygwin standard tools).
Package sources:
AT&T don't use the GNU autotools and thus their source packages look
quite different than most of the Cygwin packages and require _very_
different actions to be taken to rebuild.
Would it be OK to create a dummy -src package that just contains a text
file (maye be with a suspicious name) which refers to the AT&T software
download site?
Karsten
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -