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:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	 q=dns; s=default; b=Eu6htHzEgfGlOtEKqCxC8d0iuBiuFsMN3zbUnPz5EUI
	9HsNEKyqhwCb90IhzN10BSYeS03f5yjtc9Ga/TjRzMKeVoowoaNoIIjR12tVjBLJ
	1ozfg5Eq0Oqbh1YBCSMwm/2jKjfD96QDh3BVF/Uu8Qk8fMSf6hnyA7ZXO3xE3yzk
	=
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:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	 s=default; bh=165qKsDk2mfwpkVyg6qfZYiAZAw=; b=muj/niBLGdBtjebQH
	eKfi3CdH+rm22aRcoXiDI1uuRJUwbaMP60v+dKemY3kXwEUHNGEZvaPMn5pr1QCl
	HKnw4oK5R8wZyXuG3es84VDqDfaugHjKhjnzrw7NLQ+nGMuqF2j3S8qV35jn7adL
	lmMjH/HKz+HRVj0Ea8BHOpibaI=
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
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mout.kundenserver.de
Message-ID: <5449390F.5000903@towo.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 19:21:19 +0200
From: Thomas Wolff <towo AT towo DOT net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Problems on case-sensitive file systems
References: <54475648 DOT 3000805 AT towo DOT net> <20141022140031 DOT GD18857 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <5448F79A DOT 6010900 AT towo DOT net> <20141023153609 DOT GA20607 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
In-Reply-To: <20141023153609.GA20607@calimero.vinschen.de>
X-TagToolbar-Keys: D20141023192119895
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
X-IsSubscribed: yes

Am 23.10.2014 17:36, schrieb Corinna Vinschen:
> On Oct 23 14:42, Thomas Wolff wrote:
>> Am 22.10.2014 16:00, schrieb Corinna Vinschen:
>>> On Oct 22 09:01, Thomas Wolff wrote:
>>>> I'm facing a number of issues with case-sensitivity which I've collected:
>>>>
>>>> There is a documented limitation on case-sensitivity using drive letter
>>>> paths,
>>>> also mentioned in https://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2013-08/msg00090.html
>>>> (last item). I vaguely remember seeing a reason for this limitation in some
>>>> mail but can't find it again. I think it would be good to remove this
>>>> limitation because it breaks user expectations when working on
>>>> case-sensitive drives.
>>> The user expectation when using DOS paths is caseinsensitivity in the
>>> first place.  But, as usual, there's no way to do this right, since
>>> somebody will have another POV.  My stance is, don't use DOS paths when
>>> using Cygwin.  At leats don't use DOS paths if you have any expectations
>>> about special POSIX path handling on Cygwin.
>> I use an application that uses Windows or mixed paths, I cannot influence
>> it. So while I understand your POV, it would still be helpful to have path
>> interpretation fully-featured. (If you point me to a place in winsup, I
>> might even try to do something myself.)
> I'm not going to apply a patch to do that.  DOS paths get no special
> treatment, they are always handled with DOS/Windows defaults.
Any last chance to get a distinction here between X:\dos\paths and 
X:/mixed/paths?

>>>> According to documentation, the posix mount flag is enforced to be the same
>>>> for all mounts below /cygdrive; is there a strong reason?
>>> Yes.  The flags are shared between all cygdrive paths.  If you need
>>> something else, don;'t use the cygdrive path, but another, manually
>>> added mount point.  Note that this:
>>>
>>>   none /cygdrive cygdrive binary,posix=0,user 0 0
>>>   D: /cygdrive/d ntfs binary,nouser,posix=1,noumount 0 0
>>>
>>> does NOT work.  The manual paths must not overlap with the cygdrive
>>> paths.
>> I know and I did use a different path (maybe too similar to get
>> recognized...). But it does not seem to work properly:
>> I have now this in /etc/fstab:
>> C: /mnt/c ntfs binary,nouser,posix=1,noumount 0 0
>> T: /mnt/t smbfs binary,user,posix=1,noumount,auto 0 0
> Drop the noumount and it will work.  noumount is an unknown mount flag
> and, FWIW, not documented in
> https://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/using.html#mount-table
Ah! Thanks.
That reminds me of that other problem I had previously observed but 
forgotten:
mount does not report option errors...
Also:
mount suggests this problem itself by reporting that very unknown option 
when running just 'mount'
And as a last, minor issue:
mount does not work on relative paths (like it does on Unix/Linux) but 
needs an absolute path:
mount /mnt/c # works
cd /mnt; mount c # does not work
------
Thomas

--
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