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

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

Thorsten Glaser <tg <at> mirbsd.de> writes:

> No, it isn’t – but you could build-depend on mksh, if the script
> can be run with it (haven’t tested it), possibly with a few changes

OK, I’ve tried with the following patch:

diff -Nru ksh-93v-20131010/debian/control ksh-93v-20131010/debian/control
--- ksh-93v-20131010/debian/control	2013-01-07 16:58:44.000000000 +0100
+++ ksh-93v-20131010/debian/control	2013-11-08 00:58:27.000000000 +0100
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
 Priority: optional
 Maintainer: Oliver Kiddle <okiddle@yahoo.co.uk>
 Homepage: http://www.kornshell.com/
-Build-Depends: dpkg-dev (>= 1.16.1), debhelper (>= 7)
+Build-Depends: dpkg-dev (>= 1.16.1), debhelper (>= 7), mksh
 Standards-Version: 3.9.4
 Package: ksh
diff -Nru ksh-93v-20131010/debian/rules ksh-93v-20131010/debian/rules
--- ksh-93v-20131010/debian/rules	2013-11-05 01:41:56.000000000 +0100
+++ ksh-93v-20131010/debian/rules	2013-11-08 00:57:58.000000000 +0100
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
 build-arch: build-stamp
 build-indep: build-stamp
-	/usr/bin/ksh debian/buildksh93.sh build.opt.linux.i386.64bit.gcc.c99
+	mksh debian/buildksh93.sh build.opt.linux.i386.64bit.gcc.c99
 	touch build-stamp

This scared me a bit already: “build.opt.linux.i386.64bit.gcc.c99”

Trying to build it in a clean cowbuilder environment spits out things like:

package: warning: yacc: not found -- some make actions may fail
package: warning: bison: not found -- some make actions may fail

These are more missing Build-Depends.

Then, it fails:

package: gcc -std=gnu99 -D_GNU_SOURCE=1 -m64 -fPIC -lm -ldl: failed to 
compile this program:
int main(){return 0;}
In file included from <command-line>:0:0:
/usr/include/stdc-predef.h:30:26: fatal error: bits/predefs.h: No such file 
or directory
 #include <bits/predefs.h>

This is only natural because I’m building for i386, where -m64 is
utterly wrong.

In short, your package will not work for Debian as-is and needs,
possibly major, rework.


Reply to: