On 3/18/2011 2:53 AM, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 3/17/2011 4:36 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> OK, everybody, time out for a minute. Rather than talk vapor, I'll
>> develop the patches necessary.
FYI, the first four patches
0001-cygwin-makefile-fixes.patch
0002-cygwin-defines-WIN32-but-isn-t.patch
On 3/18/2011 2:47 AM, Erwin Waterlander wrote:
> I will create a branch for cygwin. I think that for temporary and
> redundant options it may be better to silently accept them and not
> document them.
We are still not communicating.
I do NOT propose that the new options -- whether you call the r
Op 18-3-2011 7:53, Charles Wilson schreef:
On 3/17/2011 4:36 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
OK, everybody, time out for a minute. Rather than talk vapor, I'll
develop the patches necessary.
Fair warning: I've developed this patch set, and made a cygport-based
package...but I have NOT TESTED the app
On 3/17/2011 4:36 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
> OK, everybody, time out for a minute. Rather than talk vapor, I'll
> develop the patches necessary.
Fair warning: I've developed this patch set, and made a cygport-based
package...but I have NOT TESTED the apps at all. More later, but it's
way past m
Charles Wilson schreef, Op 17-3-2011 21:36:
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 trou
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
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 n
On 03/17/2011 03:56 PM, Erwin Waterlander wrote:
Op 17-3-2011 17:57, Charles Wilson schreef:
Final point: I realize nobody wants to maintain a non-upstreamable
forked version of software. Everybody wants to be able to build
software on cygwin out of the box.
So...if the upstream people really
Op 17-3-2011 17:57, Charles Wilson schreef:
Final point: I realize nobody wants to maintain a non-upstreamable
forked version of software. Everybody wants to be able to build
software on cygwin out of the box.
So...if the upstream people really really hate --follow/--no-follow and
won't accept
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:13:51AM -0400, Andrew Schulman wrote:
>> Moved to main cygwin list for more feedback.
>>
>> Background: currently the following utilities
>> unix2dos
>> dos2unix
>> u2d
>> d2u
>> are all provided by the cygutils package. They are, in fact, all
>> hard
On 3/17/2011 10:41 AM, Erwin Waterlander wrote:
> I do understand you very well, but I come from the other side. The
> dos2unix that I packed and maintain is around on Unix/Linux since 1989.
> I assume there are much more Linux users than Cygwin users. So I don't
> want to break things on Linux.
Y
On 03/17/2011 02:32 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
Dropped cygwin-apps.
Erwin, you don't seem to understand the importance of not changing
current behavior, when replacing existing apps. I'm trying to point out
(a) how little your proposed package actually differs from the current
cygutils implemen
> Moved to main cygwin list for more feedback.
>
> Background: currently the following utilities
> unix2dos
> dos2unix
> u2d
> d2u
> are all provided by the cygutils package. They are, in fact, all
> hardlinks/copies of the same 'conv.exe' program, developed specifically
>
Dropped cygwin-apps.
On 3/17/2011 5:05 AM, Erwin Waterlander wrote:
> On 03/16/2011 10:38 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> 5) cygutils always follows symlinks. This new package does not,
>>unless --force, according to the man page (which is
>>unfortunate: the same option means "fol
On 03/16/2011 10:38 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
Moved to main cygwin list for more feedback.
Background: currently the following utilities
unix2dos
dos2unix
u2d
d2u
are all provided by the cygutils package. They are, in fact, all
hardlinks/copies of the same 'conv.e
Moved to main cygwin list for more feedback.
Background: currently the following utilities
unix2dos
dos2unix
u2d
d2u
are all provided by the cygutils package. They are, in fact, all
hardlinks/copies of the same 'conv.exe' program, developed specifically
for cygwin.
16 matches
Mail list logo
