"Luke Bakken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I've built it before from that site so am guessing it has grown out of >> date or become neglected. > > Do you really need ksh93? pdksh should work just fine in 99.9% of your cases.
No, in fact I can't site a single thing it can do that pdkish doesn't. At least not within my usage. I am just used to using it so went looking. A private poster sent a pointer to a message from the ports-cvs developers list that says... Remove the ast-ksh port. Restrictive, inscrutable license; weird build system; code doesn't inspire confidence; mostly broken. I agree fully with the part about `weird build system' and will defer to there notions about code. I'm no programmer.
