Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/01/25/15:52:47
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>There is no "su" command in the cygwin release.
>>
>>This mailing list is intended for discussing cygwin packaging issues
>>(and secondarily it is apparently intended for me to tell ever other
>>poster that they are off-topic).
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 02:29:53PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Ah -- but "su" is *supposed* to be part of the "sh-utils" package -- but
>it was ripped out because it doesn't (yet) work on cygwin. I'd view
>this post as a "here's a patch for the sh-utils package". Which,
>incidentally, DOES belong on the cygwin AT cygwin DOT com list -- but not on
>the cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com list (although confusion is possible, I
>suppose, since "sh-utils" IS a cygwin package). The relevant description:
I'm perfectly aware of why su isn't included. And, actually, it isn't
that simple.
>"for packaging discussing issues regarding applications that are
>distributed with the Cygwin DLL. ... This list is intended for
>discussing solutions. It is not for "bug reports" or "it would be nice"
>type of musings. Use the main cygwin mailing list for that."
Uh huh. My words. Consulted them before replying...
>So, patches from non-maintainers -- even for existing cygwin packages --
>belong on the main list, not cygwin apps.
>
>Having said that, it's up to the current maintainer of sh-utils to
>evaluate this contribution...
Which, coincidentially enough, would be me.
So, again, confine this discussion to cygwin AT cygwin DOT com. At least for
now.
If people report success with the patch and the patch looks ok, I'll
incorporate it into a new sh-utils.
I can't download the patch myself. If I had been able to, I may have
been able to short circuit this discussion.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -