Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/03/28/18:42:40
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 have own versions of
>>dd, df, du, ed, expand, file, find, grep, od, pr, sed, sort, strings,
>>etc. The other tools that have no Cygwin pendant, like cql, ditto,
>>iffe, look, mamake, nmake, ratz, etc., they would go into /usr/bin?
Nope -- if included at all, they should be segregated into
/usr/libexec/ast/bin/* or wherever. We might eventually have our own
'look' package that wouldn't depend on cygksh*.dll -- and would
therefore be preferable to non-ksh users (What? you mean I have to
install the whole ast package just to get look?)
> 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.
I doubt they are required. (ksh "the mega package" sounds a lot like
cygwin's old "full.exe"...). If ksh "the mega package" was split into
about four components (or more), I think it would be manageable. I'd
install the base ksh package and probably the -accel package, but not
the other stuff...
> I'd suggest a simple ksh release without the plugins (or whatever
> they're called) and a separate package for the plugins.
Yep. 'ksh' and 'ksh-accel' in my other message.
> If you have
> other executables that are not plugins then I think they will just
> be confusing and I really don't think I'm interested.
If they are segregated into a separate directory that is not normally in
the path, then only hardcore ksh'ers will set their path to get them,
and those guys "just want my ksh dammit". ksh-newbies like me -- I'll
use my GNU tools thank you and keep /usr/libexec/ast/bin OUT of my path.
> Actually, if the plugins work differently from the stand-alone versions
> then I have reservations, too.
As far as I understand, you have to explicitly enable each and every
plugin. So only those that go thru the affirmative step of enabling
them will ever run in to variant behavior -- if there is any. That's
okay. It's all about freedom.
I understand "I just want my ksh" -- think "I just want my GNU tools on
windows". == cygwin.
> It sure sounds like this should be one (or many) different packages,
> though, regardless.
- Raw text -