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: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:11:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Igor Pechtchanski Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Bug: Setup tool doesn't respect managed mountpoints/filesystems In-Reply-To: <432F1978.DB503CF7@dessent.net> Message-ID: References: <0IN2009A5RCXL6 AT pmismtp01 DOT mcilink DOT com> <432F06FB DOT 7A5422B6 AT dessent DOT net> <432F122A DOT ADF69285 AT dessent DOT net> <432F1978 DOT DB503CF7 AT dessent DOT net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Brian Dessent wrote: > Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > > Which was what I said in the part you snipped. > > My skimming skills are not great today. :( No problem... > > > Repeat for "readme" vs. "Readme" and every other of billions of > > > permutation of case. I see no way this wouldn't turn into a nightmare. > > > > Huh? Why would you need to try *all* the permutations? > > I guess I was conflating the fact that the *current* implementation > leaves lower-case and only encodes upper-case / special characters / > reserved words with the *proposed* implementation that would have to > either encode everything or encode nothing. If either everything or nothing is encoded, that's only 2 possibilities. I originally thought that it would be enough to encode the differing characters, but therein lies madness, as you observed. > > Which may or may not be considerable (and no, I don't have > > measurements to back it up). There is another overhead, and that is > > of a human trying to look at the directory with Windows tools. Yes, > > encoding is unavoidable, but it shouldn't be obnoxious. > > I know it's armchair quarterbacking but it seems to me like urlencoding > a filename (requiring no system calls, just string processing) would > have a lot less overhead than having to do double the number of calls to > CreateFile for nearly every file operation. Not "nearly every file operation", only in case clashes are present... > As far as the human-readable aspect goes, I consider managed mounts as > only being required in special or rare circumstances, and so I see > having uppercase letters fudged in Explorer is a price one can pay. Isn't this what started this thread? Explorer isn't the only Windows program that may inadvertently access (and get confused by) managed mounts. Setup is a much more important one. Besides, I can see the utility of, say, making /usr/src a managed mount (though only for non-official Cygwin packages, since the official ones had better have all their source files in the right case). > Don't the majority of filenames consist of lowercase letters anyway? > Those would remain untouched to native tools. You must have missed the fact that nearly every source tarball contains a Makefile[.in]... :-) Besides, look in /usr/share/doc/... Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. /DA -- 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/