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. Yep. --Chuck
