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

On 03/17/2011 01:56 PM, Erwin Waterlander wrote:
>> So let's rephrase: What is the "upstream" objection to providing a few
>> new options, with no change in upstream's current default behavior:
> 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.

There's two sets of patches being talked about here:

1) What temporary (3-month?) patches are needed to make the dos2unix
package a drop-in replacement to the existing cygwin dos2unix, so that
people can start testing if it really was a drop-in.

2) What patches (permanent) are worth adding to upstream, to fix
deficiencies in the usability of upstream when compared to what cygwin has.

But having re-read this conversation, my original objection based on
duplication of effort seems pretty weak; you've convinced me that the
biggest reason to switch to dos2unix is that it has more features.
However, I say that with reservation - I agree with Chuck that you need
a transition period where we make the switch but preserve cygwin
behavior, to minimize the variables.  I'm definitely in agreement with
making a phased switch to the upstream package.

My personal habits are 'd2u file', without regards to the message it
prints.  So I definitely want the d2u shortcut to be part of the package
(it apparently is not provided by upstream, and I'm too used to 'ln -s
`which dos2unix` ~/bin/d2u' when installing a new machine).

Eric Blake    +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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