X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:to:from:subject:date:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; q=dns; s=default; b=yJC5cI5yJuD9fMIyRLdHh9mPmcv4K/ RonXEcWGbjDGUKCUiAoESHeq+t/rnanb7hmzH+Z80mIhpLKiAdOifUifq/nHXdMn QGj/4WDKVWfVDTQiNik9aJGc4dxUBn9QepYpcRZAZ1ECQL1cPo4HxahjppMAoKzI ui5S/GZyQYvsg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:to:from:subject:date:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; s=default; bh=LVrH/vq4ptiaXgivudABXbo6Jws=; b=V5E0 mtDjM+h6Hy5u3gkvaPg0p1DkfMBIet74VNk5l7qSrZIL2BJipgVbi5kSB2gWkIGV ZXaAobWqN50MjCvoE13gkWxLMDgMgmH04MRCr0gTueQKrurP+xDlWZLASBWPrMuU bwcB6uhY62oOd1Y4JkBfb9GtDXyocv+ujE7P+tI= 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 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Andrew DeFaria Subject: Re: UNC and POSIX paths Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:07:55 -0700 Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <003501ce6b5f$b41f2c10$1c5d8430$%fedin AT samsung DOT com> <036c01ce6b6d$0ada5090$208ef1b0$@malth.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 In-Reply-To: <036c01ce6b6d$0ada5090$208ef1b0$@malth.us> On 06/17/2013 08:12 AM, gmt AT malth DOT us wrote: >> Why not simply fix the "not very well written configure scripts and >> makefiles"instead? BTW I've never come across a single one of those. >> Where are you getting yours? > Can't answer this offhand (aware you didn't ask me :P) but, under the > misguidance of PM's like Gentoo(portage) and rpm(build), when combined with > poorly and/or belligerently written packaging scripts, this can happen > incessantly. But that mostly only comes up when building Frankencygwins. > Sometimes you can fix it by forcing something like --prefix=///usr/local. I'm trying to understand the reluctance towards "fixing the problem" and instead the insistence on "putting a band aid on it". So in the above, why would you not instead do --prefix=/usr/local? > A CYGWIN env flag to disable UNC paths, or graft them somewhere other than > //, or an fstab-hack--basically anything allowing one to turn this feature > off--would be a moderate blessing for a small number (greater than or equal > to one) of people, but SHTDI, and this is endlessly proposed and > insta-shot-down. > > At least one "merit-based" argument does recommend against implementing this > -- a great many configure scripts test for whether // == /, which means > packages could break if packagers happened to build while using the proposed > anti-feature-feature (the inevitable response being, "shouldn't those > packages just fix their broken configure scripts"? :P) Yes, indeed. See above. -- Andrew DeFaria If a mute swears does his mother wash his hands with soap? -- 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