Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/02/08/00:38:53
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 09:29:38PM -0800, Lothan wrote:
>> >Now I'm really curious why I'm not seeing this odd behavior on my system.
>> >The only changes I've made to the stock release of cygwin is
>> that I dumped
>> >sh-utils 1.16 in favor of sh-utils 2.0.
>>
>> Um. Doesn't echo come from sh-utils?
>
>Yes, but what's that got to do with tar mangling filenames containing \t?
Weren't you saying that echo behaved differently for you? If you have a
new version of sh-utils that may be why. However, it's really only of
academic interest.
I was trying to determine if this was a cygwin problem. Now we know that
it isn't. We've empirically determined that tar is doing something funny
with backslashes.
I have no idea why tar would be doing this and have no interest in even
speculating on why it would be doing this. Since Cygwin is designed to
provide UNIX style pathnames, and the use of backslashes is very rare in
UNIX, this problem is of very little interest to me.
Since we have now moved beyond the point where we have to wonder who is
doing what, the next step is for someone who cares to debug tar.
That's not going to be me. It is most likely going to be left to someone
who cares enough about this behavior to look into it.
Hopefully, the next post on the subject will be from someone who has
investigated the source code since further speculation seems pretty
fruitless.
cgf
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -