Subject: Re: [firstname.lastname@example.org: Re: bash]
To: Matthias Buelow <email@example.com>
From: Frederick Bruckman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/27/2001 21:04:38
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Matthias Buelow wrote:
> Frederick Bruckman <email@example.com> writes:
> >I've downloaded it, but I can't even figure out the build system. It
> >seems like essential pieces are missing for the "don't-have-dmake" build.
> it's fairly simple, you untar the archive and use the bin/package
> utility for building and installing it (type "bin/package help".
> Nmake (not dmake) is required but packaged in the ast archive.
I have only "ast-ksh.2001-01-01.0000.tgz". It doesn't seem to have
either of those. Yeah, I know, if all else fails, try reading the
> It would be nice if the whole ast stuff would be available as a
> package for NetBSD, it includes other utilities (the original pax,
> etc., which is not really required for NetBSD, since it ships with
> its own pax but the AT&T one has more functionality, including
> handling of a lot more archives like rpm etc.)
I was hoping to make a little package of just "ksh".
> Of course there's the licence
> issue, it looks halfway liberal (in my understanding, it boils down
> to ATT giving you the source and you're free to use and redistribute
> it as long as you feedback any modification you make to the original,
> or at least make it available, apart from stuff you only link against
> it of course, but I am not a lawyer.)
I read the license for "ksh" as single use, no redistribution. (But,
there are other utilities on AT&T's site with more GNUish terms.) We
could possibly still have a package where the user has to supply the
distfile, i.e, go to the web page, agree to the license, and download
it by hand, as for "opera" and "staroffice".
> BTW., they also have a NetBSD/i386 binary package available at their site!
Really? Maybe I'll check that one out.