From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Feb 27 6:51:17 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from gw.nectar.com (gw.nectar.com [208.42.49.153]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EFC737B719; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 06:51:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nectar@nectar.com) Received: from hamlet.nectar.com (hamlet.nectar.com [10.0.1.102]) by gw.nectar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A538418C91; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 08:51:02 -0600 (CST) Received: (from nectar@localhost) by hamlet.nectar.com (8.11.2/8.9.3) id f1REp2V85997; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 08:51:02 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from nectar@spawn.nectar.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 08:51:02 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" To: Christian Weisgerber Cc: Steve Price , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ksh93 Message-ID: <20010227085102.A85973@hamlet.nectar.com> Mail-Followup-To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" , Christian Weisgerber , Steve Price , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <200102260514.f1Q5EHJ96328@freefall.freebsd.org> <20010226215311.A44937@spawn.nectar.com> <20010227154226.A36915@kemoauc.mips.inka.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010227154226.A36915@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>; from naddy@mips.inka.de on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 03:42:26PM +0100 X-Url: http://www.nectar.com/ Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 03:42:26PM +0100, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > I was under the impression that it is our policy to build shells > statically. Looking into ports/shells, I see that the actual > picture is one of confusion. Surprise :-) > > While this might be useful for some environments, it has the > > disadvantage that it nullifies the Korn shell's very useful dynamic > > loading of `builtin' functions (see the man page's description of > > `builtin'). > > Does anybody use this? I do. It makes ksh93 quite handy for test scaffolding. > You probably can't built extension objects without libshell, which > the port doesn't install. (It depends in turn on libast, and you > end up installing much of the AST environment, which IMO is beyond > the scope of a ksh port and should be left to a port of the ast-open > package.) I agree. > > I think this should default to building a dynamic executable. A knob > > for building a static version would be nice. > > Fine with me. I also picked up your suggestion for setting SHELL. > (Is this required for the extraction step, too?) I don't know -- I only tripped on it when building the package. On the other hand, personally I think you should nuke the custom do-extract target -- it is not needed. See the port I attached with my previous message. I also do not see the purpose of most of the patches you supplied with this port -- could you explain them to me if you have a chance? Only patch-src_cmd_ksh93_Mamfile patch-src_cmd_ksh93_sh_1 patch-src_lib_libast_features_limits_c seem useful. Maybe the others are the result of problems you saw on -CURRENT or 3.x? Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / jvidrine@verio.net / nectar@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message