Re: How to create a ksh93 package...

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 04:56:16PM +0100, Karsten Fleischer wrote:
>>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.
>
>And I'm not interested in using the GNU tools anymore on Cygwin, since
>I have the AT&T tools now.  I'm using them on SunOS, HP-UX, U/Win and
>now on Cygwin, too.

That's fine, but you realize that this sort of runs counter to the purpose
of the Cygwin project, right?

>I don't know how many people out there would be using them, though.  Of
>course they are _not_ a requirement for ksh.  I wonder what made you
>think that?

Scan your eyes upwards to the subject.  Notice the lack of plural.

You did mention packages in your email but you still kept referring
to the whole thing as a "package".

Regardless, this isn't what I was asking for.  I just asked you if you
could support ksh.  I wasn't expecting a whole slew of other things
as part of the deal.

I had already given my approval for ksh as far as its inclusion as
a cygwin package is concerned.  I really didn't think there would
be any dissent on this decision so it seemed safe.

However, anything other than ksh needs to go through the standard
package acceptance: http://cygwin.com/setup.html .

I still have serious supportability concerns wrt including other
programs with similar names as part of the cygwin package.

It may be convenient for *you* to have these available.  It may not
be convenient for *me* and anyone else who is volunteering to support
cygwin.  If you lose interest or move on, then I'll be the one asking
"Which version of 'ls' are you running?" and attempting to figure out
what's wrong with the "ast" version of things.

Maybe your interaction in the cygwin mailing list will increase once
you've gotten a package or two released but, so far, it seems like you
disappear for a month or two between discussions.  If that is an
expected pattern, then I don't think I want to invest in releasing
something that will upset the fragile sensibilities of the cygwin
mailing list community.

I think I'd be more comfortable with keeping alternate tools out
of the distribution.  We can easily advertise them on the cygwin web
page and, if requested, I'll even make space available on the ftp
server for them.

cgf