X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <45D1109E.9080107@cygwin.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:13:02 -0500
From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.9) Gecko/20061221 Fedora/1.5.0.9-1.fc4.remi Thunderbird/1.5.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Unable to run even simple batch scripts any more
References: <021b01c74ef4$b38a71d0$8532a8c0 AT M6> <eqqqiq$65c$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <loom DOT 20070213T010200-940 AT post DOT gmane DOT org>
In-Reply-To: <loom.20070213T010200-940@post.gmane.org>
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-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.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

Eric Backus wrote:
> Matthew Woehlke <mw_triad <at> users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> 
>> Dennis Simpson wrote:
>>> Three of us updated to latest windows cygwin last week, and none can run
>>> even simple .sh scripts any more.  Prior version was 6 months ago.
>> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-announce/2006-12/msg00026.html
>>
>> Next time RTFRA. Oh, and STFLA; this particular horse died a *loooong* 
>> time ago.
> 
> Obviously, the horse is still alive and attempting to limp along.  I predict 
> it'll stay alive for quite some time longer.
> 
> * Bash's current treatment of crlf causes unexpected breakage of things that 
> worked for years, and which most naive users expect to continue to work.
> * Workaround using text mounts fails because lots of cygwin commands don't 
> work right under text mounts (gzip for example, but there's lots more).
> * Workaround by exporting SHELLOPTS breaks things because it put interactive 
> things like history expansion into non-interactive shells (try calling "man 
> bash" after exporting SHELLOPTS with igncr, for example).
> * Workaround inserting "set -o igncr" is impractical when there are lots of 
> scripts.
> * Workaround calling d2u is impractical when there are lots of scripts, and 
> breaks if the scripts must work with non-cygwin shells.
> 
> I know, cygwin developers are not interested in fixing this, which is 
> certainly their right.  But you can be sure that reports of this problem will 
> continue to arrive.
> 

And Cygwin's bash maintainer continues to work to improve the situation for
those who can't just "do the right thing", despite all the email that comes
to this list suggesting that he's not interested in these issues.  I'd
recommend, before others start slinging more mud, that they read the
totality of the discussion about this.  I think you'll realize that there
have been herculean efforts to address the deficiencies mentioned above
and that the effort continues.  It would be a shame if all this extra noise
causes the maintainer to actually loose interest in the issues people find
as a result of this change.

-- 
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd.                          (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
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/