On Friday 29 June 2001 20:36, Paul Emsley wrote: > > If stuff is that portable, shouldn't it be moved out of > > util-linux and put with the general GNU utils??? My impression > > from the previous posts is that util-linux is for > > Linux-specific utils that are not portable to other arches??? > > I agree. It seems much depends on glibc, not linux (thanks > Igor). > > But there will be Flack(tm).
Hmmm. If I was a good enough programmer to write an OS util I would be proud if it was portable to many OSes. We could probably use positive phrasing and ego-stroking to get our way here: <brown_nose> Dear programmer/maintainer We have noticed that you have utility-X in the util-linux package. Are you aware that this excellent utility is both useful on and easily portable to other operating systems? You may consider having utility-X moved amongst it's peers in the general GNU utilities so that more people can take advantage of your excellent work. Best wishes, the HURD hackers. </brown_nose> (My wife read this over my shoulder. She speaks english as a second language. It took several minutes to explain the meaning of a brown nose :-) Three possible results: 1) Programmer says: Nup (and we continue to port it ourselves). 2) Programmer says: Cool (I like to think this is probable) 3) Programmer says: Those HURD people are reaally nice. I might join the project. (Obviously the best response) Only slightly tongue-in-cheek there. -------------------------------------------------------- Glenn Alexander - The man with no surname and a silly hat. (B.Teach, B.Ed Major IT Education, University of Wollongong Australia) (Now avaliable in China!) http://members.ozemail.com.au/~glenalec (last update: 2001.06.29) I use GNU/Linux: http://www.linux.org from Debian: http://www.debian.org and KDE : http://www.kde.org
