On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 12:47:42PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote: > Blair Sutton wrote: >> Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>Why should we patch a cygwin utility to promote the use of a non-cygwin >>>shell? > >None of the shells are 'cygwin', really, -- they are shells that took >their ideas from close-source Bell-Labs research. But before they >became open source, Bell labs allowed students to use it for free -- >and it became popular -- eventually clones were developed and even >later eventually, most of the bell labs sources were opened up.
I think everyone here is aware of the fact that the majority of the packages in Cygwin were not designed for Cygwin but they were all designed for a UNIX platform. And that is the goal of the project. Supporting Windows utilities is secondary. Cygwin endeavors to present an environment where shells understand "-c" rather than "/c". So, while there's no reason to just automatically reject a patch which changes that behavior, there is certainly reason to be skeptical about patch which introduced non-UNIX behavior since it obviously goes against the whole reason for the project. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
