This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [Review: no go] script-20041106-1


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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]