X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<4B600397.8030505@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:	Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:12:55 -0600
From:	"Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" <yselkowitz AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Bug: cygport fails when the working directory pathname contains spaces
References:	<4B5FA03C DOT 8020504 AT monai DOT ca> <4B5FC41E DOT 6090301 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <4B5FD16E DOT 4060107 AT monai DOT ca> <4B5FF5AE DOT 3050904 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <op DOT u66ni3hb1e62zd AT merlin DOT emma DOT line DOT org>
In-Reply-To:	<op.u66ni3hb1e62zd@merlin.emma.line.org>
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On 27/01/2010 02:36, Matthias Andree wrote:
> This isn't acceptable as a generic statement.

Nor is CCing messages to maintainers:

http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PPIOSPE

> If you're unwilling to fix the cygport parts of the bug, that's fine,
> but claiming that fixing it were generally not worthwhile amounts to
> blessing insecure programming practices.

Remember that cygport serves a single purpose: to build packages, and 
"fixing" cygport will not guarantee that a package will build in a path 
containing spaces.  For instance, both (autoconf-)configure and libtool 
(by far the most common build system out there) are shell scripts, and 
have certainly not worked in these situations in the past.  (I can't 
speak for the current situation wrt these tools.)  So there is little 
benefit in pretending to fix cygport when the result will be exactly the 
same.

Maybe I should just include a sanity check to force cygport not to run 
in such paths instead.

> Of course fixing cygport won't assure its user that the package itself
> is safe in paths with blanks, but at least then you can say that you've
> done your part and the fix is SOEP (someone else's problem).

Shifting the blame on to others won't help anybody one bit.  The package 
STILL will not build, so what has anybody gained?

> That other parts might fail is NOT AN excuse to not do your own job in a
> way that breaks other people's expectations.

I've been around long enough to know that many (most?) people's 
expectations about Cygwin are generally incorrect.  As for those who 
generally use cygport, namely package maintainers, they obviously DON'T 
USE SPACES because I can't remember such a complaint before.

> I'd seriously ask you to reconsider.

And if this were bugzilla I would be deciding between closing this 
NOTABUG or WONTFIX. :-)


Yaakov

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -