This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: pdksh package proposal
- From: Pavel Tsekov <ptsekov at gmx dot net>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:19:55 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: pdksh package proposal
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> > > The source package is still not valid. Ditto, for the readme. Have you
> > > read my original post ? There, I've put the part of the readme, which
> > > is not valid.
> >
> > Yes I read your post. When you said cygwin-specific you didn't mean the
> same
> > as in /usr/doc/Cygwin? The only cygwin-specific change is to get it to
> > compile. Should I add "changed blah to compile cleanly", more text
> > obviously, to a README file in CYGWIN-PATCHES?
I meant exactly that. The build instructions in
/usr/doc/Cygwin/pdksh-5.2.14-1.README. They imply that your package uses
"Method Two", which is incorrect. So this text should be fixed.
If it is not clear what I'm talking about, you can just try to follow
these instructions and you'll understand what I mean.
> > > Your source package does not conform to 'Method Two', though you seem to
> > > be convinced that it is.
> >
> > Sorry this is totally new to me, I'm going with "Method One". I was a bit
> > confused but have read the document again since.
Ok, then you source package is correct. I was fooled by the build
instructions in the readme file and also by this:
"Btw, I did use Charles' script, from the link on
<http://cygwin.com/setup.html> ."
You said it here: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00205.html
> > The -src package contains the the original source for pdksh (extracted,
> not
> > in gz or bz2 form) and the patch used to get pdksh to compile, in the root
> > of the -src archive.
>
> Sorry very tired ;-) The next updated package will contain the original
> source.
You don't need to change nothing in the source package. It is ok now, but
it is packaged using 'Method One'. You only have to correct the build
instructions.
> > Sorry if this is annoying, I was using apache as an example of "Method
> One"
> > and heard talk of the build script and that blew me away :-)
No, this is not annoying. I'm not an native english speaker (obviously),
so I fear that sometimes my posts, may not contain the correct wording and
thus may be misunderstood.