delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Lame followup to my own post: I think we should have A 'more' package for this reason: Q: "Where's more?" A: In the 'more' package. makes a lot more sense than Q: "Where's more?" A: Use less instead. It's better. BTW, you'll probably need to set PAGER=less. Oh, and NCFTP_PAGER=less. (Okay, that last one is an exagerration. Actually, the ncftp code has a special cygwin hack so that on cygwin, ncftp uses less by default. Other platforms use more by default. But you get the idea.) --Chuck Charles Wilson wrote: > In my previous post, I didn't mean to argue against 'more' as a package, > or against its inclusion in the 'base'. I was merely pointing out the > fallacies in arguing that Debian(util-linux in 'Base') + > util-linux(contains more) ===> cygwin(more in 'Base'). It doesn't. > > In fact, I think it would be a good idea to have a 'more' package for > cygwin. I'm not sure it should be included in 'base' -- perhaps 'Text' > or 'Utils' would be a better choice. If you are willing to > port/package/provide/maintain 'more' then I think it should be added to > the distribution.
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |