On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 09:42:39AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >According to mwoehlke on 9/29/2006 12:14 PM: >> Wilks, Dan wrote: >>> So we just got the short-end? A long(?) standing behavior of cygwin >>> and DOS paths and a recent change to bash that eliminates support for >>> \r's. I guess we were living on the edge of something that wasn't >>> supposed to work at all and didn't even know it. :/ >>> >>> We'll try to figure out some workaround for our environment. I just >>> wish going "pure cygwin" was an option. >> >> Well, as we like to say here, http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PTC. Since >> Eric is currently amenable to adding a shopt to bash, you have the >> option of implementing it yourself and submitting the patch for upstream >> consideration. > >I also mentioned that I am toying with the idea of a cygwin-specific patch >that converts all script path to posix before opening them (a'la >cygwin_conv_to_full_posix_path in <sys/cygwin.h>); at which point DOS >paths to a text mode mount would inherit text mode behavior, but DOS paths >to a binary mode mount would still remain binary. At any rate, I hope to >post bash-3.1-9 next week with something a little nicer for ignoring \r >and working with DOS paths, without too much of a penalty to people like >me that avoid \r and use POSIX paths at all costs in the first place.
If you are not going to support CRLF line endings, I really don't see any point in going overboard in trying to support MS-DOS path names. I really am getting a bad feeling that, rather than FIXING THE SCRIPTS, everyone is reverting to using text mode mounts which are not what we generally recommend. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/