I've found that it's always easy to look back at a previously made design
decision and question it, especially when one wasn't involved in the
design discussion that weighed the current needs with the benefits and
detriments of possible implementations. Rethinking a design decision
isn't bad of
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 02:16:38AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> I wasn't aware of that but then I haven't been reading perl5-porters for a while
> now. I don't know what smokes is but I assume it's a periodic test run of perl
> on various platforms.
Yes, it's "smoke testing". H Merijn Bran
...why there are two messages with the same body and different
from addresses.
Please fix your configuration problem and stop duplicating your messages.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 03:27:49PM -0800, linda w (cyg) wrote:
>Interesting...wonder why they wouldn't just create pseudo devices in /dev and do
One would have to wonder...
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 03:25:17PM -0800, LA Walsh wrote:
>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
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 po
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
Ah, yes. Teeth gnashing! Those were the good old days! ;-)
Larry
Original Message:
-
From: Rick Rankin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:44:47 -0800 (PST)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Repost, different list...File::Spec, cygwin, Syntactic vs.
Semantic path
--- Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 10:30:23AM -0800, Shankar Unni wrote:
> >linda w (cyg) wrote:
> >>What were the _original_ design goals of Cygwin -- i.e. as sponsored
> >>by "RedHat"?
> >
> >Cygwin predates RedHat. See http://cygwin.com/history.html (t
Well surely EVERYONE knows not to take your word, you're just mean after
all. ;)
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 10 January 2003 19:23
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Repost, different list...File::Spec, cyg
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 10:30:23AM -0800, Shankar Unni wrote:
>linda w (cyg) wrote:
>>What were the _original_ design goals of Cygwin -- i.e. as sponsored
>>by "RedHat"?
>
>Cygwin predates RedHat. See http://cygwin.com/history.html (the
>earliest date in the file is Dec 1995). RedHat bought Cygn
"linda w \(cyg\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: What were the _original_ design goals of Cygwin -- i.e. as
:sponsored by "RedHat"?
I do not think perl5-porters is the best place to be having that
discussion; perhaps it would be better served by a new thread
in the appropriate forum.
Thanks,
On Jan 09, linda w (cyg) wrote:
> > Cygwin targets POSIX compatibility wherever possible. Any
> > discussion about paths that ignores the POSIX standards will
> > need to be reviewed with POSIX in mind. It's easier to do
> > that up front.
> ---
> What were the _original_ design goals of C
> Cygwin targets POSIX compatibility wherever possible. Any
> discussion about paths that ignores the POSIX standards will
> need to be reviewed with POSIX in mind. It's easier to do
> that up front.
---
What were the _original_ design goals of Cygwin -- i.e. as
sponsored by "RedHat"?
> Ok, did I mention POSIX? Posix != Unix. So what's your point?
> I've been on multiple unices [bogus latinization, but unix's
>doesn't roll of the tongue nearly so well]: sun, hp, sgi, linux,
>xenix, sco, others I don't remember. I don't recall "//" being
>anything other than "/" on
On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 19:08, LA Walsh wrote:
> Ok, did I mention POSIX? Posix != Unix. So what's your point?
Cygwin targets POSIX compatability wherever posible. Any discussion
about paths that ignores the POSIX standards will need to be reviewed
with POSIX in mind. It's easier to do tha
> 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
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 03:30:25PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
>On Wed 08 Jan 2003 05:56, Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >I'm sorry. I thought the cygwin project -- was to provide a Posix type
>> >platform to [aid, assist, help] in porting *nix/gnu utils to the Win32
>> >environ
I'm sure that everyone in perl5-porters is sick of this discussion
(although I think I remember similar discussions from the days when I
was an occasional contributor) and so I apologize.
Let me make some points and then I'll shut up:
1) I'm the person who currently sets the direction of the cygw
Sorry for butting in again, but you have a factual error that needs
highlighting.
On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 13:18, linda w (cyg) wrote:
> > Understanding that double slashes at the
> > beginning of a path are special is good sense for any
> > portable program.
> ---
> There you go again, makin
>
> 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
>
>
> 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
> *
On Wed 08 Jan 2003 05:56, Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I'm sorry. I thought the cygwin project -- was to provide a Posix type
> >platform to [aid, assist, help] in porting *nix/gnu utils to the Win32
> >environment.
>
> Cygwin's primary purpose is to provide a UNIX environment
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 07:44:42PM -0800, linda w (cyg) wrote:
>> From: Christopher Faylor
>>I am not clear on why we are devoting so much time to what is required
>>for a straight win32 environment in a cygwin mailing list. As odd as
>>it sounds, this seems somewhat off-topic to me. Or at least
> From: Christopher Faylor
> I am not clear on why we are devoting so much time to what is
> required for a straight win32 environment in a cygwin mailing
> list. As odd as it sounds, this seems somewhat off-topic to
> me. Or at least uninteresting.
===
I'm sorry. I thought the cygwin
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 09:43:30AM -0800, LA Walsh wrote:
>So it seems that 'syntactically', one can't always determine if a "/" is
>invalid in a straight win32 environment -- at least not when a network name
>is involved, but I'd agree it is pathological and should be ignored (and
>documented as i
> -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
> Right, so:
> Perl for Cygwin uses "/"
> Perl for win32 uses "\" and ":".
>
> Seems pretty straight forward to me.
>
> Cygwin may be 'just a partial posix layer', but if you are compiling > for it, you
>should use "/" delimited paths.
And thats just what I meant to end with before hitting that s
> If a user calls the 'normalize' function, it should convert it
>to "\" -- since that is the OS standard/default -- HOWEVER...
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
> >So I think a fix could to change F::S::Win32 to convert all win32
> >pathseperators to unix pathseperators, and hand it off to F::S::Unix
> >to do the actual catfile(), etc calls...
>
> Sounds fine, as long as we still do the right thing when
> handed paths with backslashes in them (i.e. resul
> 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
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 02:02:31AM +0100, Hack Kampbjorn wrote:
>LA Walsh wrote:
>>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 evaluate to
>>the same,
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 11:02:02AM -0800, Gurusamy Sarathy wrote:
>As far as the Win32 native port goes (I'm not really that cygwin-savvy to
>comment on what should happen for that port) I like to see:
I'm cygwin savvy and pretty perl savvy (although it's been quite some
time since I've posted any
Jos I. Boumans wrote:
> 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 portabi
On Sun, 05 Jan 2003 21:10:09 +0100, "Jos I. Boumans" wrote:
>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 comp
On Sun, 05 Jan 2003 00:41:31 PST, "LA Walsh" wrote:
>Syntactically, this can't be anticipated or interpreted and the use of a simpl
>e, documented limitation -- the assumption of non-intermixing of \ and / as pa
>thname component separators in the same pathname would be used. So the first
>"/" se
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
37 matches
Mail list logo
