Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <3CD7C79A.55D8EA67@yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 08:24:58 -0400 From: Earnie Boyd Reply-To: Earnie Boyd X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Collins CC: Earnie Boyd , Pavel Tsekov Subject: Re: URL paths in setup.exe References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert Collins wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Earnie Boyd [mailto:earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 9:50 PM > > > > > cygfile:// makes no sense at all on my MinGW platforms. What > > mingw are you talking about? cygfile:// to me only makes > > sense in Cygwin land. > > In cygwin land, file:// can access posix paths via the standard C > library and C++ library calls. In MinGW land how do you access cygwin > posix paths? Answer: create your own library to read the cygwin mount > table (which setup has), and then wrap your C++ and C lib calls via that > (which is what cygfile:// does). > Fine, but that's still a Cygwin library and doesn't exist in MinGW land. I'm making a fuss for search engine sake. So, please, let's find a different way to reference it or I'll be getting questions of "Where can I find the cygfile library?" on my MinGW list. > > > > > > This means that: > > > file:///foo/bar.txt is /foo/bar.txt on posix, and Current > > > drive:\foo\bar.txt on mingw. > > > > I don't see that working natively, so it doesn't work on my > > MinGW, what mingw are you talking about? I tried both > > Netscape and IE, they both understand file://c:/temp/foo.txt, > > though. However, file:///temp/foo.txt wasn't found. > > Ok, well sounds like MS only do absolute paths (which the spec > requires). > And, that is a good thing, IMO. > > > > > > > As for file:// + d: + \foo\bar.txt, can we normalise that as > > > file://d|/foo/bar.txt - that is what MS do, and will be > > less confusing > > > for users of the codebase (IMO). > > > > As I've already stated file://c:/foo/bar.txt also works. > > Sure. Try file://c|/foo/bar.txt. You'll find that that works too - and > that is conformant URI syntax, whereas file://c:/foo/bar.txt is not. I'll agree. Earnie.