X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT 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 <waterlan AT xs4all DOT nl>
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 AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: ITP dos2unix 5.2.1-1
References: <4D7FE2A7 DOT 8080409 AT xs4all DOT nl> <4D7FE57A DOT 4020903 AT redhat DOT com> <4D806DCF DOT 5090803 AT xs4all DOT nl> <4D80C0B8 DOT 8090603 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> <4D80CEB4 DOT 7090005 AT xs4all DOT nl> <20110316154913 DOT GA18995 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4D80DEAF DOT 6020307 AT xs4all DOT nl> <4D810FAF DOT 6040609 AT t-online DOT de> <20110316193249 DOT GA15365 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4D8117FD DOT 40507 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> <20110316201821 DOT GA773 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4D812DBE DOT 1090607 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> <4D81CED1 DOT 9050601 AT xs4all DOT nl> <4D820D62 DOT 4030403 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> <4D821D89 DOT 5020105 AT xs4all DOT nl> <4D823D92 DOT 1000600 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT 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 AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT 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