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:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=iyRzHVz9X88fVO9q
	v/OGqKW63MFulTB9wh6iafBf7SjEfYvkkVpiYCEeTL4PcJY8ah+Dsp6XBhXuPxIk
	9iOkpwKlrvV1QjT3wDgZd5OxWmZ5OimWuw/XaO5C3N8PipkRb1P8+RxOGT18L+Vo
	stTXOM5+wlqKH2xvAwFCfYrNynM=
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:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=fDKpLlKFxEnbA9ubu0SdSh
	mT208=; b=ZpmcIowoTu2vUjijwBVIrUIyxfQ/KrFIZjZq1qZ8U0UNWWQGWABNmb
	7vqQETOGL48YlHPGmK+wzV4tILBlV2Qwmxqa7Y84px/D1Vo7bj0p2fUOCkdfvAZ6
	mlA/6c+iQ+0x3QJin2Kz8SMxrfgQO1ucMzMqrKb/O1h7RFB9Tfdy8=
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=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_2,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=claims
X-HELO: mout.kundenserver.de
Subject: Re: [bug] coreutils: potentially dangerous: $(realpath //) != /
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20180312232815 DOT 692b5da79fc18abf86d42ba1 AT inbox DOT ru> <20180313023854 DOT 2e07e4396f934961935e4435 AT inbox DOT ru> <0277f5b4-35e4-4da0-2bea-b73c4fdcfa89 AT redhat DOT com> <20180314135845 DOT caeb571cdd5a54fc5b3fd4aa AT inbox DOT ru>
From: Thomas Wolff <towo AT towo DOT net>
Message-ID: <5a588f7d-8f9d-4126-4467-1626304cd89f@towo.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 08:11:44 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180314135845.caeb571cdd5a54fc5b3fd4aa@inbox.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:k1Ka2MzBSfU=:+HT142IltSE5rGqC5Hpujs Gi+qQ7hx9d+91hI2HfjXd+q7SwkodZulS2U8RdNYnsrc3HTYUbkbfuspm2w0ClMZonZpXrbt5 yqVaWYkPgPo/SlNUPEGUHzFhH/H/GXcNBaFWK7QyylupAYx/0IKEiLgkWYZIqKTB2ln6mvAH6 pyswNBwpLk6QFk58zWfvhuoBmcph2VkNf1bJgvVYn0OClpC4rnlUgpEWh+59uQPidAVznULe5 ShAxlV7Um0LzTGqdJPtSKTmjMRkJh5r1rKjUEGq4e4S3y481j1kKzg6yycvU+rt1XeWw//6Pu TUQKIWmM3+g36RNRdalYB5OS1xW+7J7KwAyjBqtjmr8FF/ZDalj1LsSslJfcEkccTUmTbNrpb RuqsDhS6rNSyCax6QGZE9x4YG1uQDZenu8yZ8b7uC9PWS3tpkx7wegiLFmnwDQzHRoe2vBS+N V23mw4tM4/THHi3IzZqujlrbRcUHavknQCIP9Q3yDDu5hS5gz6g0j3GEKrkNRMluzKEs6V4JF aC4aWA/d1DYBVJNXVdM3L3t1uU8g2F90RvHA8o1ZNT05No+m1zRgsaZrj9009ZSvhOK4F+fXK Pfg0hs/7uoL/jtKJZ2By7bYUrGy5m8BqH8gn3mx5Xi/xM8gcBxkFL+od/N3986x2p6Vzq4xji thdpULhwIVKy5Gry9g4hQx0GJxOzy+zWAL1jTVqQrSkS2CzE7raMDISqPQJVMq5GgHa7BSu9A G7QY+RzPqHcGzVIRox7MlI8a6pbWIT6YLkysAPgCEN4NR5p1iD3w3ESpxyU=
X-IsSubscribed: yes

Am 14.03.2018 um 11:58 schrieb Mikhail Usenko via cygwin:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 20:43:13 -0500
> Eric Blake <...> wrote:
>
> ...
>> Just because Linux has taken the stance that their documented definition
>> of // is "synonym for /" does NOT mean that ALL POSIX systems have taken
>> the same approach; Cygwin has taken the approach that "// is documented
>> to be the root of network access points, distinct from /".
>>
>> POSIX allows leeway between implementations; this is one of those
>> documented places where they differ, yet are still both POSIX compliant
>> with their different choices.  If your script is not robust to what
>> POSIX has already warned you about, fix your script.
>>
>>> ...
> If you really claims that Cygwin may and should be different and distinct from all other
> existing POSIX systems (the more so that it is allowed by POSIX),
which is not the case. There are other systems where // is the network root.
> then it would probably be more obvious and clear to say this at the very begining, e.g.
> "Get that Linux feeling (with all those differents and distinctions) - on Windows"
Considering that due to the limitations of being embedded in Windows, 
Cygwin cannot always perfectly mimic either Linux or POSIX systems, I 
personally prefer the more generic approach to define POSIX as its model.
------
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