new package: ksh

Dan Nicholson dbn.lists at
Sat Mar 3 10:49:32 PST 2007

On 3/3/07, DJ Lucas <dj at> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > I have no problem rolling them into one package. I'd kind of prefer
> > that we pull all the downloads from upstream, but if it's too big of a
> > PITA, then whatever. Looking at the fedora spec, it looks like they
> > unpack all the tarballs and then just do `./bin/package "read"' then
> > `./bin/package "make"'. Then they install the files by hand.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> That was exactly what I had planned using the debian package, I didn't
> realize it was that simple.  If it's just two downloads, then that
> should be fine.  Fedora link above shows three??? Also, I have not seen
> a need for a gcc patch.

I should be clear that I haven't actually tried to do anything I'm
talking about, so I can't say why they're doing what they're doing.

> > Another option would be to use pdksh. Apparently it's not as fully
> > featured as AT&T's ksh, but if all we're using it for is bootstrapping
> > JDK, then maybe that's enough.
> >
> >
> >
> I think I'd prefer the original AT&T ksh noting the read limitation in
> pdksh.  I rarely use that syntax, prefering backtics or $(..), but I
> could see it causing problems for some.  I'll give it a go anyway.  JDK
> build is only 12 SBU now!

I actually started reading after I wrote that email. Let's try to use
AT&T's unless it's a huge pain. That pdksh is from 1999, and with the
limitations... I wouldn't bother unless you're stuck.

JDK in 12 SBU?! I may actually try to build it now. How did that happen?


More information about the blfs-dev mailing list