Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/02/12/11:57:14
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 01:03:18PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Feb 11 20:22, Eric Blake wrote:
>>I strongly oppose option 3 - cygwin should never add '.' implicitly to
>>the front of a POSIX path - if you are crazy enough to want dot there,
>>put it there yourself explicitly. But I like option 2, of squeezing
>>';;' into a single ':' (avoiding the implicit dot of $PATH '::'), and
>>ignoring trailing ';' (again, avoiding the implicit dot of $PATH
>>trailing ':'). If the user wants dot in the middle or at the end,
>>automagically converted from the Windows %PATH%, then they can
>>explicitly use ';.;' or trailing ';.' to make their intent clear. And
>>since Windows always implicitly prepends '.' to %PATH%, this might cut
>>down on the traffic to this list of "how did . get on my $PATH?".
>>(Although it will probably increase the traffic of "why did ;; get
>>turned into : instead of ::?")
>
>That's unavoidable. Whatever you do, somebody will complain.
And that is precisely why I suggested asking for feedback in the mailing
list.
I was wondering if there might be at least a couple of people who would
say "Please don't do this because I rely on this behavior".
I don't mind protecting people against the evil 3PP which corrupt the
PATH but, as I said, since we don't get that many complaints about the
current behavior (which may actually have been in place for a decade) we
don't want to necessarily penalize those smart people who have correctly
deduced that Cygwin does a one-to-one translation to/from the windows
path and have therefore put a ;; in their PATH expecting a translation
to :: in the Cygwin path.
If we don't get a single person indicating that they rely on the current
behavior then I'm ok with changing it. We have a patch ready to be
checked in, in fact.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -