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 ebl...@redhat.com +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
