X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <44D0F593.7030303@cygwin.com> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:57:23 -0400 From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8) Gecko/20060112 Fedora/1.5-1.fc4.remi Thunderbird/1.5 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: sed-4.1.5-2 References: <44D0E959 DOT 70903 AT netacquire DOT com> In-Reply-To: <44D0E959.70903@netacquire.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Joachim Achtzehnter wrote: > Hi Corinna, > > You wrote: > >> I've updated the version of sed to 4.1.5-2. >> >> It reverts the default behaviour of sed back to treating CR/LF as >> lineendings, in contrast to 4.1.5-1, which only treated the trailing LF >> as lineending and the preceeding CR as the last character on the line. > > Thank you very much for this fix. It will make life easier for all of us > who struggle with a mix of native and Cygwin tools. It is very much > appreciated that as far as line endings are concerned the attitude taken > by Cygwin developers is not "use POSIX line endings". > > At the risk of provoking another salvo of emotional responses I'd like > to express the hope that those who take the opposite attitude with > respect to path names ("use POSIX paths") may reconsider their position. > I would venture to suggest that a large proportion of serious users of > Cygwin must deal with mixed native/Cygwin tools/programs at lest to some > extent. Trying to accommodate native standards for things like line > endings and path names will obviously make things easier for everybody > except those who use Cygwin as a pure POSIX environment that they never > leave. Think about it this way: If you say "use POSIX paths or find > something other than Cygwin to do the job" you might as well go one step > further: run a POSIX operating system. In other words, you're one the > way to undermining the rationale for Cygwin's existence. > > Nobody expects that toleration of native standards which conflict with > POSIX in important ways will ever be perfect, it can't be. But this is > no reason to tear out what's already there. Of course, when there are projects that depend on these tools to deliver POSIX/UNIX semantics as well as those that rely on them for Windows-like behavior, there's the inevitable group of people that will be inconvenienced no matter what. As you say, it's a compromise that will never be perfect because of these conflicting needs. But now we're getting dangerously close to philosophy, which is admittedly not Cygwin-specific. I'd recommend that if others want to continue a discussion along the philosophical lines, take it to the cygwin-talk list, so no one can flame you. ;-) -- Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office 216 Dalton Rd. (508) 893-9889 - FAX Holliston, MA 01746 -- 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/