Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 13:02:42 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Link for MORE Message-ID: <20020317180242.GC25951@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com References: <20020317155943 DOT GA25951 AT redhat DOT com> <3C94BF71 DOT 140E9B7B AT yahoo DOT com> <20020317162813 DOT GB25951 AT redhat DOT com> <3C94C7D7 DOT 3000306 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C94C7D7.3000306@ece.gatech.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 11:44:07AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: >Back to the original subject, 'more', what if we actually provided a >more.exe binary? more != less, since they DO behave differently. If >somebody wanted to adapt the attached source (taken from the util-linux >distribution) so that it builds within cygutils, I'd add it to the >package. See /usr/doc/cygutils-1.0.0/HOW-TO-CONTRIBUTE If someone wants to contribute, I think it should just be a standard package. Chuck, I hate to say this, but I don't see a real reason for growing cygutils. The more packages we add to cygutils, the more we go back to the old way of installing cygwin packages -- with less fine-grained control. Maybe there is a good reason to have a general purpose utils package that I'm missing. It just seems to me that this is adding a focus for the cygwin package release on you -- a single point of contact. Theoretically, we could be sharing the load if the contributed pieces of cygutils were made into true cygwin packages. cgf