On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 11:30:54PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 01:04:56PM -0800, Andrey Butov wrote: >> >The script command here is identical in options to the Solaris/Darwin >> >implementation, meaning it takes the -a option to append and nothing >> >else. There are other implementations which offer more options, but >> >I've used the Solaris version for years, and wanted to implement a >> >version identical to that one to Cygwin. To cygwin implementations >> >have to follow a certain specific UNIX implementation? >> >> Ok. My very strong preference is that we should be using the same >> tools as most linux distros. SuSE and Fedora say this: >> >> NAME >> script - make typescript of terminal session >> >> SYNOPSIS >> script [-a] [-c COMMAND] [-f] [-q] [-t] [file] >> >> I'd rather not deviate any further from the linux standard by including >> tools which do not conform to linux usage. > ><innocent look> >Does this mean we're chucking ash? ><evil grin>
I had hoped that using the words "any further" would signify that I do understand that there are parts of cygwin that are not like linux and vainly hoped that using them would prevent this type of inevitable comment, humorous or otherwise. A truly discerning individual might even deduce that the confusion which results from having non-standard packages like ash in the cygwin distribution is a good reason for keeping more non-standard packages out of the distribution. cgf
