Christopher Faylor wrote:
> I'm sorry but, here again, we're talking about porting an AFAICT, > non-standard package to cygwin when we're missing something as basic as > "mailx" (or nail, or whatever). Given that argument, how would a new program ever become "standard"? > Isn't there anyone out there who can perform the dead-simple act of packaging > up nail for this purprose? It can't be that simple to port, or someone would have already done it. Christ, I can't even untar nail to my Cygwin box as it contains a file named aux.c. Also, given that http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/nail/nail/README?rev=HEAD&view=markup states: "On the other hand, I strongly discourage from porting nail to Windows and environments that make Windows look Unix-like; I won't accept any patches or suggestions that go in this direction. There are two major reasons for this: First, any port makes maintaining harder; there are always more work-arounds in the source, and introducing new features involves the question whether they will work an all supported platforms. The more different a platform behaves from, let's say, the common Unix way, the more hacks have to be made, costing human time that could otherwise have been used to enhance the software for Unix platforms. Windows is just not worth this, and here we are at the second point: Porting software to Windows encourages people to use -- that is: to buy -- Windows. It supports a company that is known to threaten Open Source software like nail. In short, porting nail (or similar free software) to Windows has an ill effect on that software. Don't do it." I have no desire to port nail to Cygwin. If you can recommend another alternative, I'm all ears. If not, then given how responsive and helpful Dean Jones was in applying my Cygwin patches to email, maybe we should support his application, instead of a program written by someone who is so unwilling to work with us, no matter how "standard" it is. -Ross