X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=viK5
	qSM/5EGcsonHgMi2is8OSPQqAfeGLzw7jSiopQQNbZ6iw4idadoPogNrsfY2INOA
	VhzujD39vR0lb2pCE9x7A9y2UxFpFILK1C7xUPtA04apl/C12gzWQbLFsxRU9K6P
	WeW0y5oYWHdBfhhlra9VTExdKUKkWlvL2mzgYPo=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type; s=default; bh=lvTMs75qLo
	gp42SqxSBkH8LiYUo=; b=q+olMQbXgA0k2QuojiWmjH1ndXRfHJ3O5bLQ4cNAiy
	CvGwkx7CcJX1osTV6OzaayzurRMAkCmNcQ49VzXaRgZrVocbcCgM0PcTWhJv+JKh
	sUi8Ntj3fB88e4ZP51EiHUYFm4gdjtweS0xQruvNfP3oIiaEpizpRMou2kCmtrEN
	c=
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
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_2,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=GOOD, HAD, price, wishes
X-HELO:	mx1.redhat.com
DMARC-Filter:	OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 635746525
Authentication-Results:	ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
Authentication-Results:	ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=eblake AT redhat DOT com
DKIM-Filter:	OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 635746525
Subject:	Re: CR-LF handling behavior of SED changed recently - this breaks a lot of MinGW cross build scripts
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<0F7D3B1B3C4B894D824F5B822E3E5A175B2636E4 AT IRSMSX103 DOT ger DOT corp DOT intel DOT com> <a53282b6-d00c-aad8-76a6-26b4089a9623 AT redhat DOT com> <0F7D3B1B3C4B894D824F5B822E3E5A175B26CE47 AT IRSMSX102 DOT ger DOT corp DOT intel DOT com> <59399CC5 DOT 60900 AT tlinx DOT org>
From:	Eric Blake <eblake AT redhat DOT com>
Openpgp:	url=http://people.redhat.com/eblake/eblake.gpg
Message-ID:	<417f84ac-5d9f-dc50-e912-973e90b8a128@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 8 Jun 2017 14:57:20 -0500
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<59399CC5.60900@tlinx.org>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

--aOpHDQtNx64G95usMMPfiwiGFD68eWlSB
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="bUAqd226t2nEAMgOXBdKvWftv5Ujg5kdO";
 protected-headers="v1"
From: Eric Blake <eblake AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <417f84ac-5d9f-dc50-e912-973e90b8a128 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject: Re: CR-LF handling behavior of SED changed recently - this breaks a
 lot of MinGW cross build scripts
References: <0F7D3B1B3C4B894D824F5B822E3E5A175B2636E4 AT IRSMSX103 DOT ger DOT corp DOT intel DOT com>
 <a53282b6-d00c-aad8-76a6-26b4089a9623 AT redhat DOT com>
 <0F7D3B1B3C4B894D824F5B822E3E5A175B26CE47 AT IRSMSX102 DOT ger DOT corp DOT intel DOT com>
 <59399CC5 DOT 60900 AT tlinx DOT org>
In-Reply-To: <59399CC5 DOT 60900 AT tlinx DOT org>


--bUAqd226t2nEAMgOXBdKvWftv5Ujg5kdO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 06/08/2017 01:51 PM, L A Walsh wrote:

>> 1.) I build many (~ 50) unix libs and tools MinGW cross on cygwin from
>> sources and this breaks many of the configure and other scripts.=20
> ---
>    But didn't one have to use 'sed -b' before, in order to
> strip out CR's?

No, the exact opposite.  It used to be that you HAD to use 'sed -b' to
preserve CRs on a binary mount; now binary mounts preserve CRs
automatically, making 'sed -b' a no-op on binary mounts.  (This is
closer to Linux behavior, where 'sed' preserves CRs automatically
because everything is binary mount, and 'sed -b' is a no-op).  On text
mounts, 'sed -b' allows you to preserve CRs where they would otherwise
be stripped automatically.

>  I.e. wouldn't all the individual lib/tool maintainers have
> been required to add '-b' to their sed scripts?

Sort of. The problem was that it used to be difficult to write portable
scripts that worked on Cygwin and non-cygwin and still dealt with CRs.
That's because you could not rely on 'sed -b' existing (not all the
world uses GNU sed, and POSIX doesn't require -b to exist).  But if you
omitted the -b on Cygwin, your data was silently corrupted.

With the change back in February, now Cygwin sed defaults to POSIX
behavior on binary mounts, and the ONLY people that still have to use
'sed -b' are those who use text mounts; while remembering that text
mounts are not the default.

>  Seems either way,
> you have the undesirability of forcing external products to change to
> support cygwin.

External products were being lazy by relying on cygwin to strip CR when
they should have stripped it themselves.  But 'sed -b' does NOT strip CR
(it is the exact opposite, of keeping CR unstripped).

>=20
>    Whereas, what I'd wonder is, how you are supplying input to sed
> in the first place?  I.e. how did CR's get into the stream to begin with.
> If you used cygwin and some tool on cygwin generated CR's into the output
> stream, I'd think that'd be a problem (or bug).  But if you are mixing
> DOS/Win-progs w/cygwin, then you need to adapt the DOS/Win progs'
> outputs to
> not have CR in them.

Exactly - it used to be you could be lazy and feed the DOS/Win prog
output (with CRs) to cygwin, and cygwin would ignore the CR - but that
laziness came at a price that it would silently corrupt data for someone
that was not aware that they needed the non-portable 'sed -b' to
preserve CR when operating on known-binary data.  Yes, the change is
forcing clients of external data to be more explicit about the CR in
their data, but in my mind, that's a GOOD thing - it's always better to
be explicit about intentions, and the new behavior is something YOU
control by whether you pre-filter the data, and not something that sed
FORCED on you by using text mode against your wishes.

--=20
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org


--bUAqd226t2nEAMgOXBdKvWftv5Ujg5kdO--

--aOpHDQtNx64G95usMMPfiwiGFD68eWlSB
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
Comment: Public key at http://people.redhat.com/eblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZOawgAAoJEKeha0olJ0Nq7JsH/1YmOy9SbE/Pj+CzgDIo3skV
IPsdoTlUTbGbz6o/R3iLj17SXJe7ThK5EmqVSn3JxFTRtvlHIeWeqv5EyVbtyzqG
ogK+WtUHksGekuUaf0J/RPaz7lh7M0h64iGaZjpWWDzFXm7p0Oynx5P3FMX8LZqx
Lr/6leRgnofAgWD30dK/BAHJmqEnka+uHboE87nU1oSmdnSZ9UR9f066/C415ftb
Uuy0KM71/r8oy+T98GNxuirGXxnA1EFJ4hcKg8KC6/xv95x5y6MkrqEwp9/hkUNJ
pDPozXerBSKQt+CDbm+KGXP1C/5otHwUzgl5VvZKwZj7W0CKRl1TMA7SLSnrBWc=
=zVfx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--aOpHDQtNx64G95usMMPfiwiGFD68eWlSB--

- Raw text -