James Carlson wrote: [snip] > > > These are all needed for ksh93. > > No. You can link them statically. > > As long as there's no other use for them, I'd be fine with having them > static. I'm not opposed to that at all.
Please note that we already have followups and the matching patches ready which will use libshell&&libcmd in OS/Net. The libraries are really needed and I consider them mandatory for the success of this project. > > 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. > > No, I don't. > > I want it in Solaris. Having it in SFW would be *fine*. This is an issue which I am not happy about. We already burried this issue and I already said it VERY clear that this project will have to seek a new lead when this happens (just to explain what I think about this "ksh93 from SWF" idea). > It solves > the problem of integrating it, provided that we don't care about the > built-in duplication (and divergence) problem. It doesn't solve issues like getting a stable API as basis for future projects nor does SWF do detailed testing. The current ksh93-integration prototype002 codebase even runs the AT&T ksh93 test suite as part of the normal built to GURANTEE that the ksh93 binary shipped in OS/Net is compatible with the version provided by upstream and conforms to some basic POSIX shell functionalities. ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
