Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 15:52:26 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: sh-utils: "su" patch for use with ntsec..
Message-ID: <20020125205226.GN27965@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <20020125143419.27411.qmail@web13402.mail.yahoo.com> <20020125173816.GF27965@redhat.com> <3C51B231.4090904@ece.gatech.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3C51B231.4090904@ece.gatech.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>There is no "su" command in the cygwin release.
>>
>>This mailing list is intended for discussing cygwin packaging issues
>>(and secondarily it is apparently intended for me to tell ever other
>>poster that they are off-topic).

On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 02:29:53PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Ah -- but "su" is *supposed* to be part of the "sh-utils" package -- but 
>it was ripped out because it doesn't (yet) work on cygwin.  I'd view 
>this post as a "here's a patch for the sh-utils package".  Which, 
>incidentally, DOES belong on the cygwin@cygwin.com list -- but not on 
>the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com list (although confusion is possible, I 
>suppose, since "sh-utils" IS a cygwin package).  The relevant description:

I'm perfectly aware of why su isn't included.  And, actually, it isn't
that simple.

>"for packaging discussing issues regarding applications that are 
>distributed with the Cygwin DLL. ... This list is intended for 
>discussing solutions. It is not for "bug reports" or "it would be nice" 
>type of musings. Use the main cygwin mailing list for that."

Uh huh.  My words.  Consulted them before replying...

>So, patches from non-maintainers -- even for existing cygwin packages -- 
>belong on the main list, not cygwin apps.
>
>Having said that, it's up to the current maintainer of sh-utils to 
>evaluate this contribution...

Which, coincidentially enough, would be me.

So, again, confine this discussion to cygwin@cygwin.com.  At least for
now.

If people report success with the patch and the patch looks ok, I'll
incorporate it into a new sh-utils.

I can't download the patch myself.  If I had been able to, I may have
been able to short circuit this discussion.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/