ITP dos2unix 5.2.1-1

Erwin Waterlander waterlan@xs4all.nl
Thu Mar 17 20:03:00 GMT 2011


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.
> 	                (default)
>
> 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,

Erwin


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple



More information about the Cygwin mailing list