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: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <20020321170551.56524.qmail@web20003.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:05:51 -0800 (PST) From: Joshua Daniel Franklin Subject: Re: pager in default install To: Charles Wilson Cc: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com In-Reply-To: <3C9A108B.3070303@ece.gatech.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > 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. Sounds good. > 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. > Well, first there's the fact that I have to branch the source anyway since util-linux will never compile OOTB. Second, unhelpful output like usage: more [-dfln] [+linenum | +/pattern] name1 name2 ... is a pet peeve of mine. What the heck are -dfln? Sure, 'man more' but a little discription would be nice. Third, if I'm going to all this trouble for cygwin, why not make it autoconf on other platforms (at least ones with ncurses, perhaps)? A quick google search showed people reporting bugs in 'more' to GNU mailing lists already, and being told that it isn't a GNU utility. > 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) That's what I meant. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards® http://movies.yahoo.com/