Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <40301BBC.7050406@mailhost.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 02:24:12 +0100
From: Jan Bruun Andersen <jan_bruun_andersen AT mailhost DOT net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Why choice between unix and dos line endings?
References: <1076890140 DOT 14181 DOT ezmlm AT cygwin DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <1076890140.14181.ezmlm@cygwin.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Chuck Irvine wrote:

> I can see no advantage of using unix line endings,
> though I guess there must be one otherwise the option wouldn't be
> offered. Can any one shed some light on this. Thanks

Let me give you an example. I work as an consultant, currently managing 
and doing system administration for a number of Sun Solaris servers.
The client I work for has standardised on Microsoft application on the 
desktop, including Visual SourceSafe for version control of 
configuration files, scripts, etc.

With my Cygwin installation set to use Unix line endings, and with my 
personalised SourceSafe INI-file set to also use Unix line endings, I 
can do a lot of work on my PC in the comfort of an Cygwin environment. I 
can edit the files in vi/vim, I can maintain Makefiles, etc. And when I 
am done, I can use ssh and scp to do a binary transfer of the files to 
the Solaris platform, knowing that the files will just work.

-- 
Jan Bruun Andersen

--
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/