Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/03/21/12:07:42

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:05:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Joshua Daniel Franklin <joshuadfranklin AT yahoo DOT com>
Subject: Re: pager in default install
To: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Cc: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0

> Take a look at the modifications I made for 'cal', 'ddate' etc, in the 
> cygutils package. Those where taken from the util-linux package as well, 
> but heavily modified to build in the cygutils tree instead of in the 
> util-linux tree.  That may give you some hints.
> Also, you're more than welcome to copy the cygutils infrastructure 
> (libsupport.a, common.h, etc) and use it with your 'more' package.

Sounds good.
> Ummm, why?  It seems to me that the only reason to have an actual 'more' 
> binary, is so that you have something that is behaviorally identical to 
> the original 'more' program -- so that progs that spawn 'more' get 
> something that actually acts like 'more' (and not 'less').  If you break 
> the behaviorally identical requirement, you might as well just 'cp 
> less.exe more.exe' and be done.
Well, first there's the fact that I have to branch the source anyway 
since util-linux will never compile OOTB. Second, unhelpful output like

usage: more [-dfln] [+linenum | +/pattern] name1 name2 ...

is a pet peeve of mine. What the heck are -dfln? Sure, 'man more' but
a little discription would be nice. Third, if I'm going to all this trouble
for cygwin, why not make it autoconf on other platforms (at least ones with
ncurses, perhaps)? A quick google search showed people reporting bugs in
'more' to GNU mailing lists already, and being told that it isn't a GNU

> Err, not really.  The original code remains under the copyright 
> ownership of whoever wrote it -- and only they can change the licensing 
> terms.  However, your changes, and support code (Makefiles, etc) can be 
> released under the GPL.  Since the util-linux source is BSD-no-advert, 
> it is compatible with the GPL -- and if you mix GPL+BSD-no-advert, the 
> result taken as a whole is therefore bound by the GPL.
> (e.g. BSD-no-advert code can be assimilated into a GPL project, but 
> still remains BSD-no-advert)

That's what I meant.

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®

- Raw text -

  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019