Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 15:59:33 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: paths like //usr/local Message-ID: <20021015195933.GB14116@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:51:19PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, [ISO-8859-1] Sven Köhler wrote: > >> >>a path like //usr/local is treated as an UNC path. >> >>this might leads to problems when an application is using //usr/local as >> >>a normal "unix"-path. >> >> >> >>i don't know how to overcome the problem, but one might think of a path >> >>like /unc/computer/share instead of using the path //computer/share >> >> >> >>what was the idea behind the current behaviour? >> > >> > Do you think that Microsoft employees read this mailing list? I'm sure >> > that there are one or two but I doubt that they could speak definitively >> > about why Microsoft chose this behavior. >> >> cygwin translates paths like /usr/local to c:\cygwin\usr\local and >> manages mount-points etc... >> cygwin opffers a complete "virtual filesystem" >> >> the cygwin-developers chose, to NOT convert //usr/local to >> c:\cygwin\usr\local >> >> i would like to know why. > >Sven, >Basically your complaint is inconsistent behavior of multiple contiguous >slashes depending on where they occur in the path (i.e., the initial two >slashes won't be collapsed, but elsewhere in the path they will be). >Perhaps something like a unc_prefix is in order, similar to the cygdrive >prefix? >"Patches gratefully accepted" (C). Oops, sorry, I guess it's "Donations >gleefully accepted" now... :-D Not in this case. There is no way that I'm going to change long-standing behavior in cygwin. To quote from the Single Unix Specification v3: "A pathname consisting of a single slash shall resolve to the root directory of the process. A null pathname shall not be successfully resolved. A pathname that begins with two successive slashes may be interpreted in an implementation-defined manner, although more than two leading slashes shall be treated as a single slash." -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/