Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <3EA3FF7E.3030202@etr-usa.com> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 08:26:06 -0600 From: Warren Young User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cygwin-L Subject: Re: Is Cygwin really required? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rolf Campbell wrote: >> > The Win32 version will not support posix paths. But, other than that, > it should still work fine. You may also get some strange line ending translation problems if you don't use the one compiled under Cygwin. If you really must have the brandest newest version of sed, I'd get the source and rebuild it yourself. It shouldn't be difficult. The main trick is then coping with future upgrades; you don't want to have both /usr/local/bin/sed and /usr/bin/sed, for example. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/