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