Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <3C9A108B.3070303@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:55:39 -0500
From: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joshua Daniel Franklin <joshuadfranklin AT yahoo DOT com>
CC: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: pager in default install
References: <20020321141612 DOT 15466 DOT qmail AT web20010 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:


>>Did you see the 'more' source code I posted the other day -- it came 
>>from the util-linux distribution (http://freshmeat.net/releases/72929/)
>>
>>--Chuck
>>
>>
> Yes, I already had the util-linux source on my HD from looking at the 
> source to kill. The problem is that it doesn't ./configure properly since I
> (obviously) don't have linux/foo includes. 


Take a look at the modifications I made for 'cal', 'ddate' etc, in the 
cygutils package. Those where taken from the util-linux package as well, 
but heavily modified to build in the cygutils tree instead of in the 
util-linux tree.  That may give you some hints.

Also, you're more than welcome to copy the cygutils infrastructure 
(libsupport.a, common.h, etc) and use it with your 'more' package.

> I'm thinking of taking just the
> essentials for branching a Cygwin-only 'more' package. Actually, I'd like to
> start out with that and then generalize it into a 'GNU more' with long-opts,
> --version, etc. I'll see about contacting someone at GNU.org about it. 


Ummm, why?  It seems to me that the only reason to have an actual 'more' 
binary, is so that you have something that is behaviorally identical to 
the original 'more' program -- so that progs that spawn 'more' get 
something that actually acts like 'more' (and not 'less').  If you break 
the behaviorally identical requirement, you might as well just 'cp 
less.exe more.exe' and be done.

> I can
> GPL formerly BSD'd code, right?

Err, not really.  The original code remains under the copyright 
ownership of whoever wrote it -- and only they can change the licensing 
terms.  However, your changes, and support code (Makefiles, etc) can be 
released under the GPL.  Since the util-linux source is BSD-no-advert, 
it is compatible with the GPL -- and if you mix GPL+BSD-no-advert, the 
result taken as a whole is therefore bound by the GPL.

(e.g. BSD-no-advert code can be assimilated into a GPL project, but 
still remains BSD-no-advert)

But IANAL.

--Chuck