delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Mailing-List: | contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm |
List-Subscribe: | <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com> |
List-Archive: | <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/> |
List-Post: | <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com> |
List-Help: | <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs> |
Sender: | cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com |
Delivered-To: | mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com |
From: | "Gerald S. Williams" <gsw AT agere DOT com> |
To: | <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com> |
Subject: | RE: True case-sensitive filenames |
Date: | Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:45:49 -0500 |
Message-ID: | <GBEGLOMMCLDACBPKDIHFGEACDBAA.gsw@agere.com> |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
X-Priority: | 3 (Normal) |
X-MSMail-Priority: | Normal |
X-MimeOLE: | Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 |
Importance: | Normal |
In-Reply-To: | <20030121031844.GA4209@redhat.com> |
Christopher Faylor wrote: > It just seemed like it was really prone to causing massive user > confusion for, IMO, little gain. I understand you're walking a fine line between offering true POSIX compatibility for Unix-types and getting beat up with questions from people on the Windows side of the house. For me the gain is being able to port a project that uses case to distinguish C implementations from C++ wrappers, implementation from examples, etc. Currently, you can't even untar such a project very easily. I'd really like to be able to apply a simple patch file if needed (or better yet, get any Cygwin changes merged into the project). But this isn't practical if the project contains files that are unrecognizable/unavailable to Cygwin. > I was following this discussion to see if eventually there would be > new ground covered but so far it seems to be treading on old familiar > territory. If you have to really stand on your head to do simple > things like renaming a file it really makes me think that this is > not going to be a robust solution. I agree with the spirit. I'm not sure it will necessarily make _rename() any less robust, though. I expect it would allow some of the current special handling to be skipped when hard links are available. Currently, the word "hack" appears four times in that function. :-) -Jerry
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |