Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:56:23 +0300 From: "Eli Zaretskii" Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il To: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu Message-Id: <8011-Tue14Aug2001095623+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: <10108131922.AA12804@clio.rice.edu> (sandmann@clio.rice.edu) Subject: Re: Windows 2000 io testing References: <10108131922 DOT AA12804 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk > From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann) > Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:22:13 -0500 (CDT) > > The reason I'm asking is that this may be relatively hard to fix. If > we fixed all the rest of the known issues other than devices, how much > would break? Should we fix everything else first and defer this? Or > work on devices and slow down getting the other items fixed? It's hard to tell. I'm afraid that if this breaks, the breakage might be very painful. If that's true, we will have to fix this anyway, and the order doesn't matter, because we cannot afford putting out a version that breaks some ports so hard. But maybe it's time for reality check: could someone rebuild Less and see whether it still works on W2K? Or even don't rebuilt, just run the binary from SimTel.NET. In addition to the normal interactive mode, I'd suggest to test something like "less < foo > bar", both from the stock shell and from Bash. Also, could people please grep the source distributions for strings like "CON", "NUL", "PRN", "/dev/tty", "/dev/null", and see whether more programs open/reopen one of these instead of using the preconnected handles?