On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 12:43:37PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:14:46PM +0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 08:30:32AM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
> >> Am Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2003 um 19:00 schriebst du:
> >> > This is the list of pending packages as of Tuesday, October 21, 2003.
> >> > Package: d 1.2.0-1
> >> > Description: The Directory Lister
> >> > Proposer: Yaakov Selkowitz
> >> > Proposal: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > Reviews: Gerrit P. Haase (cygwin-apps-get.11476)
> >> > Aye votes: Gerrit P. Haase (cygwin-apps-get.11476) [1/3]
> >> > Status: Package available. Reviewed.
> >> > HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 2 more).
> >> How much ITPs where seen without a real interest or ability from the
> >> maintainer tobe? This one is not one of these, I like this tool, that
> >> was the reason I was voting, even if I wouldn't use it, I think it is
> >> nice to have an alternative to 'ls', maybe other people think similar
> >> and want to give it a try?
> >>
> >> The most packages are really needed to develop applications and to
> >> maintain packages, but OTOH Cygwin should respect the users who just
> >> want to use it as their favourite system to drive the Windows
> >> subsystem, so give them tools to use this system. Want to say, vote
> >> if you don't think it is a really bad idea to have some alternative
> >> directory lister (questions like: "who needs it when we have ls?" are
> >> well known, but these answers are not a veto!).
> >I agree that diversity is a Good Thing. I also agree that it may be a good
> >idea to introduce such diversity (more of it) into the Cygwin Net distribution
>
> Have we already talked about why this package is better than 'ls'? If
> it is just another directory lister with different options then I don't
> see a need for it. Also, if it isn't part of any other linux or unix
> distribution then it doesn't really fit into the core goal for cygwin.
>
> Anyway, I'm not going to veto this, but I am going to register a -1 vote
> until this is clarified. If it has already been discussed then I
> apologize. I haven't been following closely.
I don't think it's been discussed on-list, but the reason I voted for it
despite me not going to use it because I like ls enough as is, is that it
actually does add some functionalities - most notably the fact that it wastes
less space in the output than ls does (which I agree can come in handy), it
lists directories first (which is increases visibility of the directory
contents) and gives a very clear summary of the directory contents.
Personally, I'm no fan of ls any more than I am of this lister: I just happen
to know ls an be used to it. I can see how the features added by this lister
can be interesting to other users, and I think that that, in itself, is
enough reason to vote for a package that has a willing maintainer and is
relatively well-written (taken a look at the code).
rlc
--
Keep the number of passes in a compiler to a minimum.
-- D. Gries
