Chris, I have successfully compiled ksh93 and almost all of the AT&T ast libraries and tools on a vanilla Cygwin 1.3.10 system. I am willing to create Cygwin setup compatible packages for these and to maintain them in future.
But, I see some problems in providing a "complete package" as defined on http://cygwin.com/setup.html. Package naming scheme: AT&T offers different versions of the ast software, namely ast-ksh, ast-base, and ast-open. Ast-ksh only includes ksh and supporting libraries, ast-base has some more tools and includes ast-ksh, ast-open is the full package and includes ast-base. Their versioning scheme is based on dates, e.g. ast-ksh.2002-03-17 is the latest ast-ksh release. I'm going to break up their packaging scheme for Cygwin a bit, e.g. omit man pages that come with ast-ksh, because those are AT&T relevant and might confuse Cygwin users. The internal ksh93 version is now "M 1993-12-28 m+". AFAIK only the last part shall change with minor updates, so I think "ksh93m+-1" would be the correct name for a standalone Cygwin ksh93 package. Is this OK with you? I have to think about how to name the other packages and where to put the actual binaries (AT&T have their own implementations of all the common UNIX utilities but I think those shouldn't go into /bin by default because they would be overwriting Cygwin standard tools). Package sources: AT&T don't use the GNU autotools and thus their source packages look quite different than most of the Cygwin packages and require _very_ different actions to be taken to rebuild. Would it be OK to create a dummy -src package that just contains a text file (maye be with a suspicious name) which refers to the AT&T software download site? Karsten -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
