Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:17:15 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Path processing bug
Message-ID: <20050822031715.GA17547@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <20050822002413.GE12465@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <20050822025905.7896213C83C@cgf.cx>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050822025905.7896213C83C@cgf.cx>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i

On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 09:58:40PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>Cgf wrote:
>
>[snip]
> 
>> I think it's a pretty hard problem and I really don't care 
>> about POSIX
>
>???  This must be a typo, or you wouldn't be here.

You're right.  It wasn't a typo but it was too strongly stated.  I
really don't care about POSIX in this case because I don't care about
slavish adherence to POSIX standards at the expense of decreasing cygwin
performance, adding a lot of complexity, or removing functionality.

For example, I don't want to make Cygwin 1% slower so that a corner case
problem like foo/../bar will work correctly and I don't want to remove
functionality from 'tar' because the 't' option to fopen() isn't
mentioned by POSIX.

And, although I use SUSv3 as a reference, when I'm looking for
compatibility, I really only care about how things work on linux.  If
there is a conflict between POSIX and linux, then linux wins, unless
there is a really compelling case otherwise.  Luckily, usually linux
and SUSv3 agree.

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/