On 3/17/2011 4:08 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 03/17/2011 01:56 PM, Erwin Waterlander wrote: >> 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.
OK, everybody, time out for a minute. Rather than talk vapor, I'll develop the patches necessary. The first one, or first set (e.g. #2, above), I'll propose that "official" upstream dos2unix accept *for all platforms*. It will not change upstream's behavior in any way, except for offering some new options. The second one (#1, above), I'll propose that Erwin use as part of his initial cygwin package offering. This one would be only a transitional measure, and would be slated to be dropped from a later cygwin package after a certain amount of time has passed. With regards to the d2u/u2d aliases, for now I'd just modify the cygport script to create those as hardlinks, and not modify or patch the package source at all. Standby... -- Chuck -- 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
