Re: Another long pathname question

You're responding to email to the mailing list? Oh, wait. This is the mailing list. >> Subject: Re: Another long pathname question Is that an echo? >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 02:29:57PM -0500, Greg Freemyer wrote: >>>If the path is short, it uses the full long dir

RE: Another long pathname question

> -Original Message- > From: cygwin-ow...@cygwin.com > [mailto:cygwin-ow...@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 18:36 > To: cygwin@cygwin.com > Subject: Re: Another long pathname question > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 a

Re: Another long pathname question

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 02:29:57PM -0500, Greg Freemyer wrote: >If the path is short, it uses the full long directory name as >expected. If the path exceeds 260, it reverts to using the 8.3 names, >thus giving a workaround that will allow you to descend deeper into a >directory structure. > >Inter

Re: Another long pathname question

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Feb 25 18:58, Greg Freemyer wrote: >> I just read the release email for 1.7.0 >> >> In part it says: >> >> - Fallout from the long path names: If the current working directory is >>   longer than 260 bytes, or if the current working dir

Re: Another long pathname question

On Feb 25 18:58, Greg Freemyer wrote: > I just read the release email for 1.7.0 > > In part it says: > > - Fallout from the long path names: If the current working directory is > longer than 260 bytes, or if the current working directory is a virtual > path (like /proc, /cygdrive, //server),

Another long pathname question

I just read the release email for 1.7.0 In part it says: - Fallout from the long path names: If the current working directory is longer than 260 bytes, or if the current working directory is a virtual path (like /proc, /cygdrive, //server), don't call native Win32 programs since they don't