X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4D826761.5030302@xs4all.nl> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 20:56:17 +0100 From: Erwin Waterlander User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; nl; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: ITP dos2unix 5.2.1-1 References: <4D7FE2A7.8080409@xs4all.nl> <4D7FE57A.4020903@redhat.com> <4D806DCF.5090803@xs4all.nl> <4D80C0B8.8090603@cwilson.fastmail.fm> <4D80CEB4.7090005@xs4all.nl> <20110316154913.GA18995@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4D80DEAF.6020307@xs4all.nl> <4D810FAF.6040609@t-online.de> <20110316193249.GA15365@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4D8117FD.40507@cwilson.fastmail.fm> <20110316201821.GA773@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4D812DBE.1090607@cwilson.fastmail.fm> <4D81CED1.9050601@xs4all.nl> <4D820D62.4030403@cwilson.fastmail.fm> <4D821D89.5020105@xs4all.nl> <4D823D92.1000600@cwilson.fastmail.fm> In-Reply-To: <4D823D92.1000600@cwilson.fastmail.fm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Op 17-3-2011 17:57, Charles Wilson schreef: > Final point: I realize nobody wants to maintain a non-upstreamable > forked version of software. Everybody wants to be able to build > software on cygwin out of the box. > > So...if the upstream people really really hate --follow/--no-follow and > won't accept it, then maybe an all-at-once change here on cygwin would > be okay. Ditto --safe. > > But...that's not an issue here, because *you* are the "upstream people"! > > So let's rephrase: What is the "upstream" objection to providing a few > new options, with no change in upstream's current default behavior: > > --follow follow symbolic links and modify the pointed-to > file. This differs from --force, which breaks > the symbolic link, replaces it with a local > copy, and modifies the copy. If --force, then > --follow has no effect. > > --no-follow do not follow symbolic links. If --force, then > --no-follow has no effect. > ... > --safe Do not modify binary files; opposite of --force. > (default) > > Time to create the patch? Patch requires too many internal changes that > are too ugly, due to internal architecture (can't imagine this is the > objection to --safe; that's a two-liner)? Style? > Hi Chuck, I'm willing to maintain patches for Cygwin, to make the transition easier. But if there is no chance that the package gets accepted, I rather save myself the trouble. best regards, Erwin -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple