Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/03/27/19:29:59
>> 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 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?
Remember ksh has that in-process execution thing, where certain commands
are replaced by internally loadable modules...the stuff Robert was
talking about two weeks ago.
I suggest that the ksh-specific binaries should just go into
/usr/bin/ksh/, and folks who want to get the speedup of using ksh's
inprocess execution should just insure that /usr/bin/ksh/ is in the
front of their path.
Naturally, ksh can use the existing utilities, but you'll suffer a slowdown.
Did I get that right, Karsten?
>>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?
Absolutely not. We must distribute the sources OURSELVES in order to
comply with our own cygwin GPL license!
If you take a look at ncftp-3.1.2-1-src.tar.bz2, you'll see that it
contains a patch,
>
> 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
>
> > utilties?
Remember ksh has that in-process execution thing, where certain commands
are replaced by internally loadable modules...the stuff Robert was
talking about two weeks ago.
I suggest that the ksh-specific binaries should just go into
/usr/bin/ksh/, and folks who want to get the speedup of using ksh's
inprocess execution should just insure that /usr/bin/ksh/ is in the
front of their path.
Naturally, ksh can use the existing utilities, but you'll suffer a slowdown.
Did I get that right, Karsten?
>> 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?
Absolutely not. We must distribute the sources OURSELVES in order to
comply with our own cygwin GPL license!
If you take a look at ncftp-3.1.2-1-src.tar.bz2, you'll see that it
contains a patch, the original source tarball, and a build script. You
can include a build script to unpack the original source tarball, patch
it, do whatever is necessary to build it (even if it doesn't involve
running "./configure")...
Feel free to adapt any of the build scripts you find in "my" packages if
they are of any use to you.
> 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.
As I said above, not providing the sources to a cygwin-linked executable
violates OUR license, regardless of whether it is allowed under THEIR
license.
--Chuck
- Raw text -