Re: cygpath -m behaviour change

2013-09-19 Thread Robert Klemme
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 3:23 PM, David Griffiths wrote: >> But why are you even using cygpath to try and determine the containing >> directory? 'dirname' does that task, in a much more portable manner, >> and without having to worry about whether 'file/..' can be abused in >> spite of POSIX seman

Re: cygpath -m behaviour change

2013-09-19 Thread David Griffiths
> But why are you even using cygpath to try and determine the containing > directory? 'dirname' does that task, in a much more portable manner, > and without having to worry about whether 'file/..' can be abused in > spite of POSIX semantics To given even more context, this is how it was used: u

Re: cygpath -m behaviour change

2013-09-18 Thread bartels
On 09/18/2013 04:34 PM, David Griffiths wrote: Hi, the script is attempting to determine the directory in which it exists, so CURRENT_DIR is a bit misleading. This is so that it can access other files in the same package relative to it (quite a common technique I think). Might be helpful to have

Re: cygpath -m behaviour change

2013-09-18 Thread Eric Blake
On 09/18/2013 08:34 AM, David Griffiths wrote: > Hi, the script is attempting to determine the directory in which it > exists, so CURRENT_DIR is a bit misleading. This is so that it can > access other files in the same package relative to it (quite a common > technique I think). > > Might be helpf

Re: cygpath -m behaviour change

2013-09-18 Thread David Griffiths
Hi, the script is attempting to determine the directory in which it exists, so CURRENT_DIR is a bit misleading. This is so that it can access other files in the same package relative to it (quite a common technique I think). Might be helpful to have some examples: /home/dgriff> mkdir test /home/d

Re: cygpath -m behaviour change

2013-09-17 Thread Andrey Repin
Greetings, Robert Klemme! >>> Yes, that's exactly right, assuming that 'boo' doesn't exist. >> >> Hi, it happens even if boo does exist. To put it in context, the >> script in question was attempting to determine the current directory: >> >> CURRENT_DIR=$(cygpath -ma "${0}"/../) > I am confused:

Re: cygpath -m behaviour change

2013-09-17 Thread Robert Klemme
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:56 AM, David Griffiths wrote: >> Yes, that's exactly right, assuming that 'boo' doesn't exist. > > Hi, it happens even if boo does exist. To put it in context, the > script in question was attempting to determine the current directory: > > CURRENT_DIR=$(cygpath -ma "${0}

Re: cygpath -m behaviour change

2013-09-16 Thread Andrey Repin
Greetings, David Griffiths! >> Yes, that's exactly right, assuming that 'boo' doesn't exist. > Hi, it happens even if boo does exist. To put it in context, the > script in question was attempting to determine the current directory: > CURRENT_DIR=$(cygpath -ma "${0}"/../) > (I didn't write this

Re: cygpath -m behaviour change

2013-09-16 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:56:37AM +0100, David Griffiths wrote: >> Yes, that's exactly right, assuming that 'boo' doesn't exist. > >Hi, it happens even if boo does exist. Not for me. % mkdir /boo norton[~] $ ls /boo/.. bin cygwin dev localhome proc usr boo

Re: cygpath -m behaviour change

2013-09-16 Thread Robert Pendell
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:56 AM, David Griffiths <> wrote: >> Yes, that's exactly right, assuming that 'boo' doesn't exist. > > Hi, it happens even if boo does exist. To put it in context, the > script in question was attempting to determine the current directory: > > CURRENT_DIR=$(cygpath -ma "${0

Re: cygpath -m behaviour change

2013-09-16 Thread David Griffiths
> Yes, that's exactly right, assuming that 'boo' doesn't exist. Hi, it happens even if boo does exist. To put it in context, the script in question was attempting to determine the current directory: CURRENT_DIR=$(cygpath -ma "${0}"/../) (I didn't write this script but I assume they did this for

Re: cygpath -m behaviour change

2013-09-13 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:17:05PM -0400, Robert Pendell wrote: >On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:55 AM, David Griffiths <> wrote: >> I reinstalled cygwin after a disk failure recently and one of my >> scripts stopped working. The problem can be easily reproduced by >> entering: >> >> $ cygpath -m bo

Re: cygpath -m behaviour change

2013-09-13 Thread Robert Pendell
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:55 AM, David Griffiths <> wrote: > I reinstalled cygwin after a disk failure recently and one of my > scripts stopped working. The problem can be easily reproduced by > entering: > > $ cygpath -m boo/.. > cygpath: error converting "boo/.." - No such file or direct

cygpath -m behaviour change

2013-09-13 Thread David Griffiths
I reinstalled cygwin after a disk failure recently and one of my scripts stopped working. The problem can be easily reproduced by entering: $ cygpath -m boo/.. cygpath: error converting "boo/.." - No such file or directory this is with version 1.7.24(0.269/5/3). On another machine with 1.