Re: Ready for test coreutils-5.2.0-1

[Charles Wilson <cygwin at cwilson dot fastmail dot fm>]

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.

> 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.

> 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'.

> uptime.exe : procps-010801-2

my linux box shows /usr/bin/uptime as part of procps, not coreutils. 
Another candidate for a rename?  ("coreps"?)

> I think the way other packages have dealt with this problem is by
> renaming with a prefix ("corekill" like "prockill") or just
> not installing them. I don't want to speak for Chuck, but the
> other option is, if he gets a new cygutils ready with Harold's
> mkshortcut patch he could also remove readlink from cygutils.

--
Chuck