Ready for test coreutils-5.2.0-1

[Mark Blackburn]

So I will delete the following:
  usr/bin/uptime.exe
  usr/bin/kill.exe
  usr/share/man/man1/uptime.1.gz
  usr/share/man/man1/kill.1.gz

I will include the fileutils patches except the ones to src/copy.c and 
lib/regex.c since they have no apparent effect.

One final question: for now do I rename usr/bin/readlink.exe to 
usr/bin/corereadlink.exe (ditto for [...]/man1/readlink.1.gz) or do I 
leave them as is?

BTW I have updated the setup.hint file:

http://blackburn.homeip.net/cygwin-packages/release/coreutils/setup.hint

sdesc: "Basic file, shell and text manipulation utilities."
ldesc: "The GNU Core Utilities are the basic file, shell and text 
manipulation
utilities of the GNU operating system. These are the core utilities 
which are
expected to exist on every operating system. Previously these utilities 
were
offered as three individual sets of GNU utilities, fileutils, 
shellutils, and
textutils. Those three have been combined into a single set of utilities 
called
the coreutils. "
category: Base
requires: cygwin libiconv2 libint

Mark Blackburn

Christopher Faylor wrote:

>On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 03:45:44AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>  
>
>>Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>>There are also some patches I'm considering adding from fileutils-4.1-2 
>>>>(proposed-fileutils-patches.txt). I got these by diffing fileutils-4.1 
>>>>with the src package for fileutils-4.1-2. I was hoping that the previous 
>>>>maintainer could comment on these patches so I could figure out if they 
>>>>are relevant for the coreutils package.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>If they the changes haven't been made in the coreutils source, why 
>>>not continue using the Cygwin-specific patches?
>>>      
>>>
>>agree.  Any cygwin-specific patches that were in the "old packages" that 
>>haven't been pushed back all the way to "official" coreutils, need to be 
>>kept in cygwin's coreutils.
>>    
>>
>
>Agree.
>
>  
>
>>>There are still conflicting binaries:
>>>
>>>kill.exe : cygwin-1.5.7-1
>>>      
>>>
>>this is _probably_ cygwin specific.  I'd either rename the coreutils one 
>>to 'corekill', or not distribute coreutil's kill at all.
>>    
>>
>
>Let's not distribute it.
>
>  
>
>>>readlink.exe : cygutils-1.2.4-1
>>>      
>>>
>>I'll go ahead and remove this program from cygutils -- but only *after* 
>>coreutils has made it thru its initial shake-down period.  Thus, I won't 
>>delay cygutils-1.2.5 waiting for coreutils to finish ITP'ing -- but I'll 
>>release cygutils-1.2.6 very soon after coreutils goes 'gold'.
>>    
>>
>
>Agree.
>
>  
>
>>>uptime.exe : procps-010801-2
>>>      
>>>
>>my linux box shows /usr/bin/uptime as part of procps, not coreutils. 
>>Another candidate for a rename?  ("coreps"?)
>>    
>>
>
>Do we need two of these?  Let's not distribute it.
>
>cgf
>  
>