On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 07:14:13AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: >According to Joshua Daniel Franklin on 9/14/2005 7:10 PM: >>I did that 'more' release as part of getting together some packages for >>a minimal but still somewhat useful Cygwin installation. I like 'less' >>and have never actually used 'more'. I'd actually prefer if we could >>symlink it to 'less' for the people who are used to it and drop the >>separate package. >> >>Anyway, thanks for the upload but I guess I'm still MIA. :) > >Sorry if my upload without waiting for your reply was too hasty, but it >appears no harm was done. On closer inspection of >/usr/src/more*/more.c, you did list yourself as the person porting to >cygwin, and I should have realized that you are still actively on the >cygwin lists.
I missed the fact that you uploaded this without the approval of the maintainer. Please don't do that. >Meanwhile, cygwin less is at 381, but upstream less 382 is out (although >http://www.greenwoodsoftware.com/less/ says there is no need to upgrade); >and looking at /usr/src/less-381-1, I can't see a maintainer there either. I maintain less. >Who maintains less, and are they willing to make a new release of less >that includes /bin/more as a link to less, so that we can obsolete the >more package in favor of less? This time, I won't be so hasty (with >more, I figured that 3 years of inactivity warranted an instant >upgrade). > >To summarize, should cygwin follow the maxim 'less is more'? :) Checking various linux systems: % rpm -q -f /bin/more util-linux-2.12p-9.3 % dpkg -S /bin/more util-linux: /bin/more % epm -q -f /bin/more util-linux-2.12q-r1 So, no, I will not be including a 'more' symlink in the 'less' package. I'll take on 'more' maintenance responsibilities. cgf