>Christopher Faylor wrote: >>There is no "su" command in the cygwin release. >> >>This mailing list is intended for discussing cygwin packaging issues >>(and secondarily it is apparently intended for me to tell ever other >>poster that they are off-topic).
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 02:29:53PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: >Ah -- but "su" is *supposed* to be part of the "sh-utils" package -- but >it was ripped out because it doesn't (yet) work on cygwin. I'd view >this post as a "here's a patch for the sh-utils package". Which, >incidentally, DOES belong on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list -- but not on >the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list (although confusion is possible, I >suppose, since "sh-utils" IS a cygwin package). The relevant description: I'm perfectly aware of why su isn't included. And, actually, it isn't that simple. >"for packaging discussing issues regarding applications that are >distributed with the Cygwin DLL. ... This list is intended for >discussing solutions. It is not for "bug reports" or "it would be nice" >type of musings. Use the main cygwin mailing list for that." Uh huh. My words. Consulted them before replying... >So, patches from non-maintainers -- even for existing cygwin packages -- >belong on the main list, not cygwin apps. > >Having said that, it's up to the current maintainer of sh-utils to >evaluate this contribution... Which, coincidentially enough, would be me. So, again, confine this discussion to [EMAIL PROTECTED] At least for now. If people report success with the patch and the patch looks ok, I'll incorporate it into a new sh-utils. I can't download the patch myself. If I had been able to, I may have been able to short circuit this discussion. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
