Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/03/27/19:07:35
[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 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 think so but I'll let the collective wisdom of cygwin-apps decide.
>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).
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?
>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.
That's no big deal. Not everything in the cygwin release uses autoconf.
>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?
My preference would be for complete source but if this doesn't violate
an AT&T license agreement, then... I'll let the people here weigh in
with an opinion.
Could you post setup.hint files for your proposed package(s)? Use the
instructions at the URL you mentioned and, if possible, scan the cygwin-apps
archives for comments on previous submissions to see what people have
suggested or objected to in the past.
Thanks,
cgf
- Raw text -