Enrico Forestieri wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 11:09:00AM +0100, Georg Baum wrote: >> So what do you think about the patch? Should it go in, or should we first >> research the "use cygwin_path_fix in external_path or not" issue? > > In my experience, if a cygwin application does not try to manipulate a > path by itself, i.e., if it simply use the pathname for loading, or > saving, or whatever, it can even be passed a true win-style path with '\'. > A notable exception is latex, which for some reason needs posix-style > paths in .tex files.
No, it does not need posix style paths: It simply cannot cope with backslashes for obvious reasons. AFAIK miktex can handle paths like "C:/temp/test.tex". Not a big difference, but not exactly posix either. > So, given that things work as they stand now, why > changing? If everything works: Fine, but from reading the code I suspect that there might be problems when calling external programs or handling paths to the filedialog. Of course we should not fix anything when we are not sure where the problem lies. > Anyway, I have no problem in maintaining my own patches to the official > sources. To tell you the truth, there is almost no free software I use > that I do not patch for some reason or another. Sometimes it is because > the patches are really peculiar to me, but sometimes it is because I am > scared by the time you have to invest to have them accepted (I don't mean > you in this case, really). Similar here. If I discover a bug I normally report it through the bug tracker or mailing list. If they don't act on that it is not my problem. Georg
