X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 07:48:07 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Similar Bash 3.1.18 CR/LF Problem
Message-ID: <20061004114807.GE30609@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20061001013338 DOT GE1459 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <657A9BE009D3504AAE29BD8E8C2DD61E01A5ABFD AT SDGEXEVS02 DOT corp DOT intuit DOT net> <20061002205334 DOT GA3653 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <loom DOT 20061004T095843-852 AT post DOT gmane DOT org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <loom.20061004T095843-852@post.gmane.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 08:04:55AM +0000, Ken Wagnitz wrote:
>Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please <at> cygwin.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 01:14:37PM -0700, Wilks, Dan wrote:
>> >cgf wrote:
>> >>I really am getting a bad feeling that, rather than FIXING THE SCRIPTS,
>> >>everyone is reverting to using text mode mounts which are not what we
>> >>generally recommend.
>>
>> If you want to continue to use Cygwin tools, you really should
>> investigate converting the generated scripts.
>> 
>>People who have not been entirely clear on what Cygwin is supposed to
>>be or are not willing/able to adapt might be left behind by this and
>>other similar changes.
>
>I am another who has been bitten by this change to the behaviour of
>Cygwin.  Obviously I am one who is being "left behind".  What platform
>is Cygwin written to run on?  How would the Unix community react if
>someone ported a really nifty tool from the DOS/Windows world to Unix,
>but its data or script files had to have CR/LF endings for it to work?

I suspect that people wouldn't use the tool or, if it was really
important, they might investigate how they could help improve it by
looking at sources and providing patches.

However, really for the above analogy to be true, you'd have to throw in
the "Unix community" not being quite clear on what the "really nifty
tool" was supposed to be doing.

The dilemma here is that I read other mailing lists besides cygwin where
people are trying to use Cygwin but are close to giving up because it is
so slow.  So, making bash faster for people who are using it correctly
is very desirable.

In any event, while I'm not particularly interested in hearing case
studies, I have a hard time believing that it is completely impossible
for you or anyone to add a d2u step to whatever is generating your
scripts.  If you did that you would actually benefit from the bash
speedups.

cgf

--
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/