This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: ITP dos2unix 5.2.1-1
On 03/16/2011 02:52 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
Then you're going to have to explain why the other implementation is
better (not just "but that's the one the linux people use": cygwin is
I think it's a good argument. Most cygwin programs are ported from
Unix/Linux. Scripts that come from Linux don't need to be modified for
dos2unix any more with the version I propose.
Quota from http://cygwin.com
* a collection of tools which provide a Linux look and feel
environment for Windows.
Dos2unix is by default safe, with an option to force conversion.
not linux) AND ensure that the new version is capable of ALL the modes
of operation that the old version supports.
Otherwise, you may break people's existing usage patterns.
Offhand, I can think of several (there might be more):
* The --safe and --force options
* The ability to operate as part of a pipe (stdin/stdout)
Yes. And in-place and paired conversion.
* --auto mode (with 3 formats, dos/unix/mac, there is no "opposite")
but that doesn't really matter for the explicit d2u/u2d variants.
Only 'conv' needs to worry about --auto)
There is no auto mode. But dos/unix/mac conversion is supported.
I propose to keep 'conv'. So people who like conv's auto mode can still
* keep file date.
* ISO and 7bit conversion like on SunOS
Now, I'm not opposed to removing u2d/d2u/dos2unix/unix2dos from
cygutils. Less apps to support makes life easier for me. I just don't
want to break anyone's existing setup, usage patterns, or scripts.
The command-line options are not compatible, but the difference is not
Most people will use it without options I guess. It depends on what you
are used to. If you come from Linux or Cygwin.