On 2018-03-15 01:11, Thomas Wolff wrote: > 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 >> beginning, e.g. "Get that Linux feeling (with all those differences 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. It's comforting to know that if a script arg is supplied as / and used as the target of rmdir $v/ or rm -rf $v/..., it won't do anything. (Although any such args should always be canonicalized, then checked to ensure they are not, whether deliberately or inadvertently, null, $PWD or any prefix, /, or other significant standard paths.) -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada -- 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
