> -Original Message-
> From: Igor Pechtchanski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sun, Mar 09, 2003 8:59p
> To: linda w (cyg)
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: >/dev/stderr broken in /bin/sh?, makewhatis
> unhappy, & apropos confused, or just me?
>
>
> Linda,
>
> A couple of points to
> What so it's the list managers fault? The reason you don't
> have to subscribe to this list, I'm guessing, is to make it
> easier for new user's post here instead of *forcing* them to
> sign-up first. If thats being "different" and violates
> "normal expectations" then I obviously cannot argu
Interesting...wonder why they wouldn't just create pseudo devices
in /dev and do the normal unix mount thing? Seems odd to complicate the simple
namespace model needlessly by adding a special syntax.
Even still, just because one wants to have more traditional unix names doesn't
preclude the possi
> From: Robert Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > There you go again, making relative assertions about "good/bad"
> > again. It's common practice to define a $(ROOT)/foobar
> underwhich to
> > build or install a program. It is common to have ROOT=/
> when you want
> > to install i
>
> Cygwin's primary purpose is to provide a UNIX environment for
> Windows. Although it can be used in other ways, the basic
> purpose is not to provide a stepping stone to helping port
> programs to native Windows. Things like Win32 path names and
> accommodating pure-win32 processes are
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Elfyn McBratney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> I tend to agree that as windows uses the back-slash as a
> default path seperator so should `normalize' but also in the
> interest of compatability with windows 95 (in dos mode) as it
> doesn't support the forwa
> -Original Message-
> From: Hack Kampbjorn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Cygwin, and possibly, the Win32 module, are inconsistent in
> handling
> > the differences between i:/foobar/ and i:. On one hand i: is
> > considered a 'volume' but on the other hand i:/ seems to
> evaluat
> Gurusamy Sarathy wrote:
> > I agree with most of your points, and in particular with the one
> > above. I consider File::Spec::Win32 currently broken because it
> > hijacks all paths and turns them into the backslashed
> variety, which
> > is completely wrong from the portability POV. (By
This was originally sent to cygwin and module authors list, but since File::Spec
is part of core perl, it was suggested I move it to the perl5-porters list,
though it's not really 'just' a porting issue, since it also involves the
issue of how File::Spec should be _defined_ to behave (syntactic ana
9 matches
Mail list logo
