Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/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
X-Authentication-Warning: squirtle.localdomain: kstar set sender to vze4rnqz AT verizon DOT net using -f
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 18:01:16 -0500
From: Kurt Starsinic <kstar AT cpan DOT org>
To: "linda w (cyg)" <cygwin AT tlinx DOT org>
Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com, perl5-porters AT perl DOT org
Subject: Re: Repost, different list...File::Spec, cygwin, Syntactic vs.  Semantic path analysis
Message-ID: <20030109230116.GA9579@verizon.net>
References: <1042100310 DOT 8869 DOT 344 DOT camel AT lifelesslap> <006c01c2b82d$55dd70d0$1403a8c0 AT sc DOT tlinx DOT org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <006c01c2b82d$55dd70d0$1403a8c0@sc.tlinx.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH PLAIN at pop016.verizon.net from [68.161.124.58] at Thu, 9 Jan 2003 17:01:18 -0600

On Jan 09, linda w (cyg) wrote:
> > Cygwin targets POSIX compatibility wherever possible. Any 
> > discussion about paths that ignores the POSIX standards will 
> > need to be reviewed with POSIX in mind. It's easier to do 
> > that up front.
> ---
> 	What were the _original_ design goals of Cygwin -- i.e. as 
> sponsored by "RedHat"?
> 
> 	If one claims that the original project pages are irrelevant or not
> appropriate to use as a specification of the project intention, then I'd say
> that Cygwin has been moved off of the original project goals and
> is no longer "the same" project, but something else.  
> 
> 	Changing the original goals to suit the aesthetic sensibilities of
> project maintainers  is very different from creating a useful compatibility
> layer for RedHat customers to port applications from Linux to the Win32
> environment and use those applications and tools _seamlessly_ with *native*
> Win32 applications.  Putting on an 'enterprise' hat, I don't want my Win32 or
> Linux sys admins to have to learn to use separate path syntaxes depending on
> which tool they are using in the Win32 environment.  A project goal/feature
> that was listed was the ability to use Win32 tools intermixed with usage of
> Unix [redhat linux] utils.
> 
> 	Under any major, user-oriented version of Unix that I am aware
> of, "//" is reduced to "/" by the *OS*.  This is perfectly POSIX compliant
> behavior.  The restriction of non-assumptions of "//"=="/" are on _applications_
> that desire to be POSIX compliant -- it is not a restriction on the OS.

    That's not a feature of the OS, it's a feature of the filesystem.
The fact that Unix-like OS's *typically* use ext2fs/ffs/etc. as their
primary filesystems, and that MS OS's *typically* use, um, any of
about seven filesystems with a variety of case-sensitivity, maximum-
filename-length, valid characterset, path separator, and directory
structure permutations is orthogonal.

    Your sysadmins don't need to learn different path syntaxes for
different *environments*, but they do for different *filesystems*.  You
can mount an HPFS filesystem on a Linux box, and you can mount an FFS
filesystem on a Windows box.  Either way, you will have to cope.

    - Kurt


--
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/