This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Pending Packages List, 2003-10-21
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:14:46PM +0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 08:30:32AM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
>> Am Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2003 um 19:00 schriebst du:
>> > This is the list of pending packages as of Tuesday, October 21, 2003.
>> > Package: d 1.2.0-1
>> > Description: The Directory Lister
>> > Proposer: Yaakov Selkowitz
>> > Proposal: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
>> > Reviews: Gerrit P. Haase (cygwin-apps-get.11476)
>> > Aye votes: Gerrit P. Haase (cygwin-apps-get.11476) [1/3]
>> > Status: Package available. Reviewed.
>> > HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 2 more).
>> How much ITPs where seen without a real interest or ability from the
>> maintainer tobe? This one is not one of these, I like this tool, that
>> was the reason I was voting, even if I wouldn't use it, I think it is
>> nice to have an alternative to 'ls', maybe other people think similar
>> and want to give it a try?
>> The most packages are really needed to develop applications and to
>> maintain packages, but OTOH Cygwin should respect the users who just
>> want to use it as their favourite system to drive the Windows
>> subsystem, so give them tools to use this system. Want to say, vote
>> if you don't think it is a really bad idea to have some alternative
>> directory lister (questions like: "who needs it when we have ls?" are
>> well known, but these answers are not a veto!).
>I agree that diversity is a Good Thing. I also agree that it may be a good
>idea to introduce such diversity (more of it) into the Cygwin Net distribution
Have we already talked about why this package is better than 'ls'? If
it is just another directory lister with different options then I don't
see a need for it. Also, if it isn't part of any other linux or unix
distribution then it doesn't really fit into the core goal for cygwin.
Anyway, I'm not going to veto this, but I am going to register a -1 vote
until this is clarified. If it has already been discussed then I
apologize. I haven't been following closely.