This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Ready for test coreutils-5.2.0-1
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 03:45:44AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
>>>There are also some patches I'm considering adding from fileutils-4.1-2
>>>(proposed-fileutils-patches.txt). I got these by diffing fileutils-4.1
>>>with the src package for fileutils-4.1-2. I was hoping that the previous
>>>maintainer could comment on these patches so I could figure out if they
>>>are relevant for the coreutils package.
>>
>>
>>If they the changes haven't been made in the coreutils source, why
>>not continue using the Cygwin-specific patches?
>
>agree. Any cygwin-specific patches that were in the "old packages" that
>haven't been pushed back all the way to "official" coreutils, need to be
>kept in cygwin's coreutils.
Agree.
>>There are still conflicting binaries:
>>
>>kill.exe : cygwin-1.5.7-1
>
>this is _probably_ cygwin specific. I'd either rename the coreutils one
>to 'corekill', or not distribute coreutil's kill at all.
Let's not distribute it.
>>readlink.exe : cygutils-1.2.4-1
>
>I'll go ahead and remove this program from cygutils -- but only *after*
>coreutils has made it thru its initial shake-down period. Thus, I won't
>delay cygutils-1.2.5 waiting for coreutils to finish ITP'ing -- but I'll
>release cygutils-1.2.6 very soon after coreutils goes 'gold'.
Agree.
>>uptime.exe : procps-010801-2
>
>my linux box shows /usr/bin/uptime as part of procps, not coreutils.
>Another candidate for a rename? ("coreps"?)
Do we need two of these? Let's not distribute it.
cgf