This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: ITP dos2unix 5.2.1-1

Op 17-3-2011 17:57, Charles Wilson schreef:
Final point: I realize nobody wants to maintain a non-upstreamable
forked version of software.  Everybody wants to be able to build
software on cygwin out of the box.

So...if the upstream people really really hate --follow/--no-follow and
won't accept it, then maybe an all-at-once change here on cygwin would
be okay.  Ditto --safe.

But...that's not an issue here, because *you* are the "upstream people"!

So let's rephrase: What is the "upstream" objection to providing a few
new options, with no change in upstream's current default behavior:

	--follow	follow symbolic links and modify the pointed-to
	                file. This differs from --force, which breaks
	                the symbolic link, replaces it with a local
	                copy, and modifies the copy. If --force, then
	                --follow has no effect.

	--no-follow	do not follow symbolic links.  If --force, then
	                --no-follow has no effect.
	--safe          Do not modify binary files; opposite of --force.

Time to create the patch?  Patch requires too many internal changes that
are too ugly, due to internal architecture (can't imagine this is the
objection to --safe; that's a two-liner)?  Style?

Hi Chuck,

I'm willing to maintain patches for Cygwin, to make the transition easier. But if there is no chance that the package gets accepted, I rather save myself the trouble.

best regards,


-- Problem reports: FAQ: Documentation: Unsubscribe info:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]