Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/09/30/21:33:55
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 09:42:39AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>According to mwoehlke on 9/29/2006 12:14 PM:
>> Wilks, Dan wrote:
>>> So we just got the short-end? A long(?) standing behavior of cygwin
>>> and DOS paths and a recent change to bash that eliminates support for
>>> \r's. I guess we were living on the edge of something that wasn't
>>> supposed to work at all and didn't even know it. :/
>>>
>>> We'll try to figure out some workaround for our environment. I just
>>> wish going "pure cygwin" was an option.
>>
>> Well, as we like to say here, http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PTC. Since
>> Eric is currently amenable to adding a shopt to bash, you have the
>> option of implementing it yourself and submitting the patch for upstream
>> consideration.
>
>I also mentioned that I am toying with the idea of a cygwin-specific patch
>that converts all script path to posix before opening them (a'la
>cygwin_conv_to_full_posix_path in <sys/cygwin.h>); at which point DOS
>paths to a text mode mount would inherit text mode behavior, but DOS paths
>to a binary mode mount would still remain binary. At any rate, I hope to
>post bash-3.1-9 next week with something a little nicer for ignoring \r
>and working with DOS paths, without too much of a penalty to people like
>me that avoid \r and use POSIX paths at all costs in the first place.
If you are not going to support CRLF line endings, I really don't see
any point in going overboard in trying to support MS-DOS path names.
I really am getting a bad feeling that, rather than FIXING THE SCRIPTS,
everyone is reverting to using text mode mounts which are not what we
generally recommend.
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 -