[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New ksh/ksh93 package, half the size, ten times the features!!!!


The sources are here:

On 06/11/13 18:21, Joshuah Hurst wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Joshuah Hurst <joshhurst@gmail.com> wrote:
>> FYI
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: ольга крыжановская <olga.kryzhanovska@gmail.com>
>> I have uploaded a prototype of the new ksh Debian package to
>> http://www.nrubsig.org/people/fleyta/debian/ksh/astksh20131010_deb_prototype/ksh_93v-20131010-1_amd64.deb
> Feedback for the (contents of the) package would be very welcome...
> Josh

I haven't been able to compile the package neither on debian testing nor
on debian wheezy.

The package is based on the alpha build dated 2013-10-10 and the
debian/rules build target calls a script (buildksh93.sh) which comes
from opensolaris project. As far as I can see, the script is only able
to build i386 and x86_64 binaries (when using a linux kernel) but I
personally couldn't get it to work.

Olga, I don't understand why you did the package like this for the
following reasons:

1/ recently Glenn has worked on ksh sources so that it now support
debian multiarch. Starting with the INIT-2013-10-30 and
ast-ksh-2013-10-10 releases, I have verified that the sources compile
just fine on debian wheezy, debian testing and even on ubuntu 12.04 LTS
and raspbian wheezy on ARM without relying on an external script. Have a
look at this post if you want to get the last release

2/ when I look at your debian/rule, the way you call the buildksh93.sh
script makes usage of just a small part of the whole content of the
script. Half the script is about solaris stuff and another amount of it
handles pathcc and pcc compilers which are not available in debian.
Wouldn't it be worth to get rid of this script? We could use quilt
patches to enable/disable features (like Oliver did with the current ksh
package in debian) or just directly provide the required builtin header
file (instead of creating it with a cat >file.h <<EOF construct).
Without the buildksh93.sh script, the compilation could be tested on
other architecture.

If we can't get rid of the buildksh93.sh, I have here other remarks
about it:
- the script is executed using /usr/bin/ksh. Is it fine to have a build
dependency on the package we are about to build? If it is, the build
dependency in the debian/control file is missing the ksh entry.
- the buildksh93.sh has code under the CDDL license, the
debian/copyright file should then be updated

I'll be glad to help improving the ksh package in debian. I'll look
further in the buildksh93.sh and see if I can do the same without it.

Note: your initial mail started its journey on debian-devel ml with
this post http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/11/msg00080.html. So
I am answering on it too.

Kind regards.

Giovanni Rapagnani

Reply to: