Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
From:	Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Sep 2000 13:56:14 -0400
To:	cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject:	Re: Strange cd/CDPATH behavior
Message-ID:	<20000926135614.A4680@cygnus.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
References:	<OFF5B2744E DOT E9A73F2E-ON86256966 DOT 005E7A5D AT RCHLAND DOT IBM DOT COM> <00a601c027e0$ec31fb30$c4acb018 AT home DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.6i
In-Reply-To:	<00a601c027e0$ec31fb30$c4acb018@home.com>; from enolte@campuspipeline.com on Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 11:40:54AM -0600

On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 11:40:54AM -0600, Erik Nolte wrote:
>> > The obvious answer is to stop using DOS style paths with cygwin cd's.
>> > Unfortunately, what I'm really doing is "cd $SRC_PATH" where SRC_PATH is
>> > "W:/src".  SRC_PATH must be a DOS style path to keep javac and other
>> > windows-based software happy (they can't grok paths without drive
>> letters).
>>
>> Use cygpath...
>> >cygpath -u -p c:/
>> /
>>
>> In your example, something like:
>> cd $(cygpath -u -p $SRC_PATH)
>> would probably work.
>
>
>I wish I could, unfortunately the cd's are inside makefiles and scripts that
>run both on cygwin/NT/Win2K and on Solaris.  And the Suns aren't too happy
>about cygpath.  I can hack around the problem by unsetting CDPATH or
>creating a SHELL_SRC_PATH (/c) and a APP_SRC_PATH (c:/).  The interesting
>thing is that B20.1 didn't exhibit the problem.  How compatible should 1.1.4
>be with B20.1?
>
>I'm under the impression that B20.1 is obsolete and that Cygnus (or at least
>the cygwin developers) would prefer people using 1.1.x.  Is that true or
>should we wait until 2.0?

Check the cygwin web page at http://www.cygwin.com/ and draw your own conclusions.
See if it mentions "2.0" and what it says about "B20.1".

FWIW, I haven't seen anyone mention that this is a *bash* idiosyncrasy.  Bash is
apparently not dealing well with c:\foo style paths, which is hardly surprising.

I doubt that these problems show up in Solaris since there is no possibility
that you'll ever see a x:\ path there.  I'm not sure why you are not using
POSIX paths for what you need to do but if you need to use x:\ paths in bash
your best alternative is to investigate the problem in the bash source and
offer a fix to the bash maintainer.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com

- Raw text -