Josh Hurst wrote: [snip] > > These are all needed for ksh93. > No. You can link them statically. There would be no need for any of > these libraries. There is no need for ksh93 in ON either. You could > put it into sfw. Or you could download it from blastwave. They have a > ksh93 package. But you want ksh93 in ON. You want the libraries as > separate shared libraries. Why do you refuse to go one step further > and accept that the libraries are put into /lib?
Note: I am VERY unhappy that this xx@@@!!-SWF discussion comes up again. I thought we discussed this item, had a phone conference and burried it then in the grave labeled with "EXTREMELY bad ideas which the world doesn't need". A ksh93 delivered via SWF is IMO not what we need - it is completely unsuited for this project. ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
