On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 04:05:17PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: >On 3/16/2011 3:32 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 08:29:51PM +0100, Christian Franke wrote: >>> An alternative would be to modify cygutils+dos2unix packages such that >>> the user can select the flavor of dos2unix/unix2dos commands with >>> /usr/sbin/alternatives. If cygutils is the default if installed this >>> should not break anything. > >Except you would no longer be able to run dos2unix/unix2dos/d2u/u2d from >a non-cygwin context, such as 'naked' cmd.exe or some IDE like Eclipse. > >> Hey, good idea, assuming that Chuck is amenable. I'd be happy to just >> let the package in given that proviso if so. > >Uh, let's think about that a minute. > >cygutils is pulled in as part of Base (cygutils is not in the Base >category, but it is required by a packages that is: cygwin-doc). Adding >alternatives as a dep of cygutils would then make alternatives an >implicit part of Base. alternatives itself brings in no other unsavory >dependencies. > >This would be a change, since although alternatives is used by some very >common packages [vim, automake], it's not in the default Base-"only" >(actually, Base+requirements) installation. > >It also means that cygwin's dos2unix could no longer be executed from a >non-cygwin context, because of the symlinks. > >Finally, Eric Blake already referenced this possibility, I think: "I see >no reason to repackage it as an alternative build." > >If everybody else is ok with that, then I have no objections...but I >think we should hear from folks about these (possible) issues before >making a decision.
Ah, right. I didn't get that Eric was referring to this scenario but, regardless, I should have remembered that alternatives means using symlinks. Given the use that d2u is put, I don't think we want to make it a symlink. So, I guess that means that we poll the community if we want to go ahead with this. Either that or the binaries in the new package are given a different name to avoid conflicts. cgf
