From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 67652 invoked by alias); 7 May 2016 01:41:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 67641 invoked by uid 89); 7 May 2016 01:41:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=pax, diffutils, towotowonet, towo@towo.net X-HELO: etr-usa.com Received: from etr-usa.com (HELO etr-usa.com) (130.94.180.135) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 07 May 2016 01:41:24 +0000 Received: (qmail 31267 invoked by uid 13447); 7 May 2016 01:41:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO polypore.west.etr-usa.com) ([73.26.17.49]) (envelope-sender ) by 130.94.180.135 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 7 May 2016 01:41:22 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re: cmp missing from base From: Warren Young In-Reply-To: <572C697E.1090408@towo.net> Date: Sat, 07 May 2016 01:41:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <29250DCF-60A0-4113-9834-25EA744E8F41@etr-usa.com> References: <572C697E.1090408@towo.net> To: The Cygwin Mailing List X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-05/txt/msg00075.txt.bz2 On May 6, 2016, at 3:53 AM, Thomas Wolff wrote: >=20 > after a recent fresh installation of cygwin, I was surprised that `cmp` w= as missing, which is part of the traditional Unix base commands. > I think the diffutils package should be part of the base installation. We=E2=80=99ve never really had a hard rule on what is in Base and what isn= =E2=80=99t. It=E2=80=99s always been a judgement call. I wonder if the rule should just be =E2=80=9CPOSIX=E2=80=9D? That is, if i= t=E2=80=99s on this page, it should be in Base: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/idx/utilities.html That would exclude other things we=E2=80=99ve always excluded, such as Perl. I=E2=80=99m not suggesting that we make this rule a strict one. Most impor= tantly, it cannot be an exclusion rule: Cygwin must contain things not in P= OSIX. I=E2=80=99m just suggesting that it would be nice if Cygwin were as = close to POSIX as practical out-of-the-box. By that latter, I mean without extra effort other than adjusting some setup= .hint files. I mean, if there is a command on that list that doesn=E2=80= =99t even have a Cygwin package, I don=E2=80=99t mean to propose with this = rule that someone must go out and package it just to satisfy POSIX. As a counterexample, that list contains pax(1), which is currently in Archi= ve, not Base, so by that rule, pax(1) should also move to Base. By that very example, though, I can argue against this proposed rule: as I = understand it, pax(1) was added to POSIX at the same time they dropped cpio= (1) and tar(1), thinking that by doing so, they=E2=80=99d change existing p= ractice, moving everyone over to pax(1). That just created a Standard in t= he XKCD sense: https://xkcd.com/927/ -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple