ITP dos2unix 5.2.1-1

Erwin Waterlander waterlan@xs4all.nl
Wed Mar 16 14:52:00 GMT 2011


On 03/16/2011 02:52 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
>
> Then you're going to have to explain why the other implementation is
> better (not just "but that's the one the linux people use": cygwin is

Hi Chuck,

I think it's a good argument. Most cygwin programs are ported from 
Unix/Linux. Scripts that come from Linux don't need to be modified for 
dos2unix any more with the version I propose.

Quota from http://cygwin.com

Cygwin is:
   * a collection of tools which provide a Linux look and feel 
environment for Windows.


> not linux) AND ensure that the new version is capable of ALL the modes
> of operation that the old version supports.
>
> Otherwise, you may break people's existing usage patterns.
>
> Offhand, I can think of several (there might be more):
> * The --safe and --force options
Dos2unix is by default safe, with an option to force conversion.

> * The ability to operate as part of a pipe (stdin/stdout)

Yes. And in-place and paired conversion.

> * --auto mode (with 3 formats, dos/unix/mac, there is no "opposite")
>    but that doesn't really matter for the explicit d2u/u2d variants.
>    Only 'conv' needs to worry about --auto)

There is no auto mode. But dos/unix/mac conversion is supported.
I propose to keep 'conv'. So people who like conv's auto mode can still 
use it.

Additional features:
* keep file date.
* ISO and 7bit conversion like on SunOS
* Internationalisation.

> Now, I'm not opposed to removing u2d/d2u/dos2unix/unix2dos from
> cygutils.  Less apps to support makes life easier for me.  I just don't
> want to break anyone's existing setup, usage patterns, or scripts.

The command-line options are not compatible, but the difference is not 
very big.
Most people will use it without options I guess. It depends on what you 
are used to. If you come from Linux or Cygwin.

best regards,

Erwin



More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list