X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-gm-message-state; bh=/to7ovasA1oujLjIUiFzOSxiMeXjdXhDjgefyabH/Sw=; b=RKVEoOEw+IfWV0ZREOOd2ZCGS816PpEJq6e0+KJPmURHbq09CZVbqK/C6Rdm4sdgy4 Ehj0yClvnjsj5q+HYySl1PN4Ft+ms+4LnMKJtP9QBPeXAU34shIV6pzhBALpsrypmb6j SYLiknnm+aA/Wzax2Ix2aE/xtDabJw9DhTf0/m3dj2O7ZtnbOVc9qubo4gMk9UQ34YFz gX7KWZz8ghAqMWEWJyog/O7uhnUb+tonMkfAJjoynNM4oms1FGTbR6obctfq+rTiJx7I dOQJfEK/8RkA9mxuWub5Mkwjkydq/muPEs8Hv2EXRPRUJ3EWuOzJjmIdXRkqmVwQYYu9 O+Qg== X-Received: by 10.224.181.16 with SMTP id bw16mr5793475qab.58.1361205595893; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 08:39:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <51225959.1090809@centrych.org> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:39:53 -0500 From: Centrych Administrator User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Is this a bug or a behavior? References: <511BBBD4 DOT 8090902 AT fastmail DOT fm> <511DC7A4 DOT 80701 AT centrych DOT org> <511E667D DOT 6020000 AT cygwin DOT com> In-Reply-To: <511E667D.6020000@cygwin.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlGzsqOVz9aCo7QBkL2ZFz41whr3jYl9WKBVuUGVP5pCLTFV3nG6oFNjfi7FW0ECL4qmegw Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 On 02/15/2013 11:46 AM, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: > I believe these questions are the crux of your inquiry so I've stripped > out the surrounding details. Apologies if you feel I've removed > something > you feel is a significant point. > > This goes to the heart of a difference between how Windows and Linux > treat > executables and various ingrained assumptions both make about their > respective expectations (essentially what Adam said ;-) ). Cygwin > does try > to bridge this gap but it has its limits as well. This is actually not > new issue and has been discussed many times in the past on this list. If > you're interested in the details or, even better, in improving what's > currently implemented, I'd recommend reviewing previous discussions, the > ideas they generated, and the issues and limitations mentioned. That > should help you understand the current state and provide you with an > informed basis if you want to take a swing at providing some patch. > > The only short answer I can give you is that the current state is a > compromise. That doesn't mean there isn't a better one. Just that > it's a complicated area for many reasons so getting to a better state > is also complicated. Fair enough. I'd like to take a crack at it once I clear some other things off of my plate first. Will have to look through previous conversations before I know if it's something I can competently tackle. Thanks. -jack- -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple