Op Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:17:55 -0400 schreef Christopher Faylor
in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
: On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 01:42:05AM +0200, Bas van Gompel wrote:
: > : > : Why are we bothering with this?
: > : >
: > : > If I may attempt to answer this one... Many people may not know of
: > : > this usage, yet may have their windows path ending on a ';'.
: > :
: > : I'm sure the same thing is true on UNIX and yet it has survived for
: > : years without a unicheck program informing people of this fact.
: >
: > There are no windows paths in UNIX, and there is no unicheck program
: > for any purpose. Does this mean cygcheck should be removed?
:
: We're talking about paths, not "Windows paths".
We're talking about how paths are displayed by cygcheck.
It displays them using window's conventions.
[...]
: Of course, if someone can use cygcheck to diagnose their own problems
: then, that's great. I don't see any reason to alarm someone with a
: warning about a minor issue like an empty path component when it
: is not an uncommon idiom, though.
I see what you mean. I got the idea for the patch when reviewing a
cygcheck.out which I first thought had 2 empty lines after the path.
Further examination revealed the first of these held a TAB.
I thought that was unclear. One might miss the fact there was an empty
component.
: > What are you planning to do? Will you revert this patch, reject the
: > next patch and leave things as they are, or consider it when it's
: > submitted?
:
: I'm leaning to reverting the patch unless you can point me to a
: preponderance of email messages in the cygwin list which illustrate
: that this has been a common problem crying out for a warning. Maybe
: I just missed something.
You know there is no such thing. Would you anyhow consider the
following patch, which just displays "." instead of the warning?
: If you are interested in adding real improvements to cygcheck, I'd
: suggest something to ensure that the permissions on system directories
: and files are sane, and maybe even a method to correct problems in that
: area. That seems to be one of the biggest complaints in the mailing
: list.
I'll see what I can do. I however doubt if this can be accomplished
with a trivial patch. (I do have some more trivia in store...)
(Would not corrections be misplaced in cygcheck?
Is ensuring correct permissions not something better handled in setup?)
ChangeLog-entry:
2004-10-10 Bas van Gompel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* cygcheck.cc (dump_sysinfo): Don't warn about empty path-
components, just display ``.''.
--- src/winsup/utils/cygcheck.cc 6 Oct 2004 09:46:40 -0000 1.45
+++ src/winsup/utils/cygcheck.cc 9 Oct 2004 07:39:01 -0000
@@ -958,9 +958,9 @@ dump_sysinfo ()
{
for (e = s; *e && *e != sep; e++);
if (e-s)
- printf ("\t%.*s\n", e - s, s);
+ printf ("\t%.*s\n", e - s, s);
else
- puts ("\tWarning: Empty path-component");
+ puts ("\t.");
count_path_items++;
if (!*e)
break;
L8r,
Buzz.
--
) | | ---/ ---/ Yes, this | This message consists of true | I do not
-- | | / / really is | and false bits entirely. | mail for
) | | / / a 72 by 4 +-------------------------------+ any1 but
-- \--| /--- /--- .sigfile. | |perl -pe "s.u(z)\1.as." | me. 4^re
