X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-Id: <4D82690A.9060105@saic.com> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:03:22 -0400 From: "Roger K. Wells" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110307 Fedora/3.1.9-0.39.b3pre.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.9 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> <4D826761 DOT 5030302 AT xs4all DOT nl> In-Reply-To: <4D826761.5030302@xs4all.nl> 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: 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 On 03/17/2011 03:56 PM, Erwin Waterlander wrote: > 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. > My 2cents worth: I for one look forward to the new package. All of the software we develop runs on both platforms and I personally use the dos2unix, etc tools often. Same tools on both platforms gets my vote anytime. roger wells > 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 > > -- Roger Wells, P.E. SAIC 221 Third St Newport, RI 02840 401-847-4210 (voice) 401-849-1585 (fax) roger DOT k DOT wells AT saic DOT com -- 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