Date: Sun, 6 Nov 94 22:07:38 JST
From: Stephen Turnbull <turnbull AT shako DOT sk DOT tsukuba DOT ac DOT jp>
To: leisner AT sdsp DOT mc DOT xerox DOT com
Cc: djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
Subject: where is the difinitive sh-util//fileutils?

   From: "Marty Leisner" <leisner AT sdsp DOT mc DOT xerox DOT com>

   In message <9411042210 DOT AA23327 AT delorie>you write:
   >I've got a port of the fileutils (and many other gnu packages) in the
   >GNU cd-rom; I'll send them my patches and then they'll be official,
   >and then (hopefully) anyone will be able to build them.
   >DJ

   Well, Jim Meyering  is releasing new fileutils/shellutils this weekend...

   I'm not sure why you need to change any source...I was able to compile
   useful utitities (i.e. not things like mknod, ln) by:
	   1) changing the makefiles
	   2) adding open.S to the lib, and changing the default open to binary

Those look like patches to me :-)  I hope we're not going to open the
"text vs. binary" thread again, though.

   I also know backups on 8+3 file names is a problem, I have to look at
   this...

So you do agree on the need for patches.  :-*  Seriously, anytime a
package can be compiled out of the box is a big win for anyone
operating on a limited system (eg, the IBM ThinkPad I'm writing this
on crashes every 3-20 compiles while compiling Ghostscript---this is
an IBM hardware/firmware bug, not GS's fault, but the principle's the
same): if it did that, I could let it run overnight or while I was at
my favorite pub.
    --Steve