This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: astksh review


On Mon, 19 May 2003, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:

> On Mon, 19 May 2003, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 14 May 2003 09:51:24 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:41:01AM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
> > > > Karsten wrote:
> > > > > Here we go.
> > > > > You don't need anything else.
> > > >
> > > > [After that: a short, ~90 lines build report was printed on my screen]
> > > >
> > > > > I hope I could give some insight. Some things looked like black
> > > > > magic to me at first, too, two years ago.
> > > >
> > > > Wow, I had similar experience when building libsfio the first time.
> > > > This should really be included in a /usr/docs/Cygwin/ast-ksh.README
> > > > file for interested individuals.
> > >
> > > I agree.  Another point is that ksh is obviously clashing with pdksh.
> > > pdksh is creating a ksh symlink which is overwritten by the ATT ksh now.
> > >
> > > Is that what we want?  Shouldn't `ksh' stay a symlink which points to
> > > the executable one actually wants to use?
> > >
> > > Just asking...
> > >
> > > Corinna
> >
> > Sorry I missed this (my backlog is HUGE! :-)
> >
> > I created the ksh symlink so users wouldn't have to edit their shebang
> > lines to point to `/bin/pdksh' but now we have the proper ksh (available)
> > I suppose I could get rid of it. What's the feeling?
> >
> > We could do one of
> >
> >   1. Remove the ksh symlink from the pdksh package.
> >   2. Rename ksh.exe (in astksh) to astksh.exe and have a ksh symlink to
> >      astksh.exe
> >   3. Maybe only two options. :-)
> >
> > these?
> >
> > Elfyn
> 
> IMO, the best thing to do would be to check in the postinstall script in
> both packages, and if the "ksh" symlink is not present, create one and
> point it to the appropriate executable.  Also mention this in the README
> of both packages, so if people install both at once, they'll know how to
> switch between them.
> 
> IOW, I'd choose #2 above, but make the symlink package-dependent (or is
> that what #3 is?)...
> 	Igor
> 

Something like that (only I forgot it ;-). Perhaps a ksh-config script to 
switch between the two..maybe an overkill.

Elfyn

-- 
Elfyn McBratney
Systems Administrator
ABCtales.com



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]