future of su

Eric Blake eblake@redhat.com
Tue May 29 21:02:00 GMT 2012

On 05/29/2012 02:58 PM, Thomas Wolff wrote:
> Am 29.05.2012 17:37, schrieb Eric Blake:
>> Upstream coreutils is considering completely dropping su, in favor of
>> having util-linux provide su across all GNU/Linux distros.  Right now,
>> cygwin's su.exe comes from coreutils, but with a cygwin-specific patch,
>> and it still doesn't do quite what users are used to from a Linux
>> perspective.  Is it better to completely drop su from cygwin, or should
>> I coordinate with the util-linux maintainer to hand control of su out of
>> coreutils and over to util-linux?
> Why would you drop it completely? It's an essential tool, especially in
> a Windows environment.
> I was quite delighted when I discovered that it works here as expected;
> I don't use it often but when I do it's extremely useful.

So now the question is whether the util-linux maintainer is willing to
turn on the building of su (can that version even be made to work in
cygwin?) or whether I should fork su and its cygwin-specific patches out
of the coreutils package and instead into its own package.

Eric Blake   eblake@redhat.com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 620 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-apps/attachments/20120529/34361e91/attachment.sig>

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list