How to create a ksh93 package...

[Christopher Faylor]

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?

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'd suggest a simple ksh release without the plugins (or whatever
they're called) and a separate package for the plugins.  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.

Actually, if the plugins work differently from the stand-alone versions
then I have reservations, too.

It sure sounds like this should be one (or many) different packages,
though, regardless.

cgf