X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From: Martin Stromberg <eplmst AT lws256 DOT emw DOT erisoft DOT se>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: ls /dev/c strangeness
Date: 30 Mar 2004 08:01:55 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Erisoft AB, Sweden
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <c4b9hj$gma$2@antares.lu.erisoft.se>
References: <c3mjvj$sc6$1$8302bc10 AT news DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lws256.emw.erisoft.se
User-Agent: tin/1.4.7-20030322 ("Suggestions") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.8 (sun4u))
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Melvin Curran <melvin AT hme DOT ltd DOT uk> wrote:
: To illustrate the problem, here is a sequence of commands straight
: from my dos session:

: C:\test>ls
: dir1  file1  file2

: C:\test>ls -l
: total 2
: drwxr-xr-x    2 dosuser  dos            32 Mar 19 15:42 dir1
: -rw-r--r--    1 dosuser  dos             7 Mar 19 15:42 file1
: -rw-r--r--    1 dosuser  dos             7 Mar 19 15:42 file2

: C:\test>ls /dev/c
: dir1  file1  file2

: C:\test>ls -l /dev/c
: ls: /dev/c/file1: No such file or directory (ENOENT)
: ls: /dev/c/file2: No such file or directory (ENOENT)
: ls: /dev/c/dir1: No such file or directory (ENOENT)
: total 0

: C:\test>ls /dev/c/test
: dir1  file1  file2

: C:\test>ls -l /dev/c/test
: total 2
: drwxr-xr-x    2 dosuser  dos            32 Mar 19 15:42 dir1
: -rw-r--r--    1 dosuser  dos             7 Mar 19 15:42 file1
: -rw-r--r--    1 dosuser  dos             7 Mar 19 15:42 file2

: As you can see I'm getting a problem when ls has any options (I
: have tried others) and the path given is /dev/c. I do, however,
: get the correct response if I am in the root directory of C.
: Is it just my system, or is everyone getting this?
: (I also downloaded the beta version to try - no difference)

: On a side note, I realise that 'ls /dev/c' lists the current directory
: on drive C rather than the root directory because of the way the
: dos file system works, but if /dev/c was introduced instead of C:
: to give us POSIX-like syntax, wouldn't it have been a good idea
: to give it POSIX-like semantics as well?

There was some discussion of this on djgpp-workers. I suggest you
check the archives. But I think it might have been A. critical path
that we don't want to slow down or B. not worth the effort (no coder
time).

If you find out it was B. please consider coding it. aTdHvAaNnKcSe!


Right,

						MartinS