On Fri, 17 Oct 2014, Gregory Shenaut wrote:
> touch "Ⓐ Ⓑ Ⓒ" ; touch "ⓐ ⓑ ⓒ"
>
> you get two files (or at least I did).
Same here (Mavericks). Oh, and on my FreeBSD server too, as I'd expect.
> When I first moved to Mac OS/X from Unix, I tried installing part of the
> system on UFS. It claimed
I played around with the Character Viewer and found that the default Mac
filesystem does a pretty good job at correctly confusing upper and lower case,
in every character set I tried (this is not always trivial). The only exception
I found was with circled Latin letters. If you run this command:
On Oct 17, 2014, at 5:04 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Friday October 17 2014 16:33:20 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> Actually the buildbot servers use case-sensitive filesystems.
>
> Really?
To the best of my knowledge, yes, they always have.
> Then how come I had to build a port like libkgapi
On Friday October 17 2014 16:33:20 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> Actually the buildbot servers use case-sensitive filesystems.
>
Really? Then how come I had to build a port like libkgapi myself because
installing it from the binary image led to aliasing?
When installing from source, port creates a t
On Oct 17, 2014, at 3:37 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Saturday October 18 2014 07:18:11 Dave Horsfall wrote:
>
>> Amen. This is egregious breakage on a massive scale, and something that I
>> would expect from MickeySoft.
>
> Ssshhht: MacPorts' buildbots use case-insensitive file systems .
On Saturday October 18 2014 07:18:11 Dave Horsfall wrote:
> Amen. This is egregious breakage on a massive scale, and something that I
> would expect from MickeySoft.
Ssshhht: MacPorts' buildbots use case-insensitive file systems ...
R.
___
macports-u
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
[ Making a file-system case-sensitive, as Ken and Dennis intended ]
> I don't know of a free solution, but iPartition from Coriolis Systems
> does this. It's among the few utility software I actually bought a
> license of (among with their iDefrag an
On Oct 17, 2014, at 3:34 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> I don't know of a free solution, but iPartition from Coriolis Systems does
> this. It's among the few utility software I actually bought a license of
> (among with their iDefrag and Disk Warrior) and my go-to tool when I want to
> be sure
On Oct 17, 2014, at 6:22 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> It's been a while since I checked, but isn't it possible to go from the one
> to the other by swapping a switch with the right tool, without needing to
> reformat the whole partition?
I have never heard of such a thing.
> (As to HFSX vs H
On Saturday October 18 2014 05:40:17 Dave Horsfall wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2014, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> If there is then this Macoid would dearly love to know how. Coming from a
> 40-year Unix background I was horrified when I discovered that the
I don't know of a free solution, but iPartit
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> > Correct, but if you're (a) formatting a disk and (b) choosing HFSX+
> > (case-sensitive HFS+), you know what's up. New Macs are already set up
> > with HFS+, and I don't want anyone with the default filesystem to
> > accidentally trash anything b
On Friday October 17 2014 01:40:23 Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>
> Correct, but if you're (a) formatting a disk and (b) choosing HFSX+
> (case-sensitive HFS+), you know what's up. New Macs are already set up with
> HFS+, and I don't want anyone with the default filesystem to accidentally
> trash
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014, Michael Crawford wrote:
> While the C programming language is defined to be case-sensitive, I
> don't think UNIX enforces that definition. It depends on the filesystem
> - consider mounting an 8.3 FAT floppy.
If you're talking about C, it sure is case-sensitive. If you're
On Oct 17, 2014, at 1:35 AM, Michael Crawford wrote:
> One can choose whether one's new filesystem is case-sensitive when one
> initializes it with Disk Utility.
Correct, but if you're (a) formatting a disk and (b) choosing HFSX+
(case-sensitive HFS+), you know what's up. New Macs are already s
One can choose whether one's new filesystem is case-sensitive when one
initializes it with Disk Utility.
I don't recall when they added case-sensitivity but it was sometime
around tiger or leopard.
While the C programming language is defined to be case-sensitive, I
don't think UNIX enforces that
On Oct 16, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Jim Graham wrote:
> And, case-sensitive vs case-insensitive? That debate doesn't apply on
> Unix systems---it's always case-sensitive. If I create two directories,
> foo and Foo, they are different directories, and I know, from decades of
> working with various Unix
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 07:56:30PM -0500, Jim Graham wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:27:26AM -0400, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Ren?? J.V. wrote:
>
> And, case-sensitive vs case-insensitive? That debate doesn't apply on
> Unix systems---it's always case-sensit
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:27:26AM -0400, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Ren?? J.V. wrote:
>
> > > view towards the way things are in Linux-land.
> >
> > Correction: Unix. X11 was around (long) before Linux, and no matter how
> > you turn it, OS X *is* a Unix OS.
>
>
X11 goes back to way before Mac OS X, as well as long before Linux.
I first built X11 on SunOS (not Solaris) in 1989, on a workstation
that was running Sunview.
I still own a copy of Mac X (or some such) that ran on System 7.
I've never read the X11 spec but my understanding is that it only
defi
Hi,
please take your conversation off-list. We don't want to be on Lennart's
next list of hostile open source projects.
--
Clemens Lang
(I admit, I couldn't resist that one. But please, go arguing elsewhere.)
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-u
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:59 AM, René J.V. wrote:
> I'm going to stop this discussion here, and not even try to understand
> where this comes from.
> Take your own advice, and see if you can make any sense out of your own
> proclamations.
>
If you will stop parroting Linux propagandists almost
On Monday October 13 2014 11:27:26 Brandon Allbery wrote:
> So unix/hostname:display was somehow not Unix? You're just digging the hole
> deeper. Stop, think, consider --- or go back to Linux, since your purity is
> being corrupted by defective other operating systems that refuse to do
> things th
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:15 AM, René J.V. wrote:
> > view towards the way things are in Linux-land.
>
> Correction: Unix. X11 was around (long) before Linux, and no matter how
> you turn it, OS X *is* a Unix OS.
>
So unix/hostname:display was somehow not Unix? You're just digging the hole
deep
On Monday October 13 2014 15:27:18 Chris Jones wrote:
> Any scripts that make any assumptions on what $DISPLAY looks like are
> flawed by designed...
> Clearly its my opinion, as I stated it. Apologies if that was not obvious.
No, sorry, you phrased your opinion as an absolute truth. I
On 13/10/14 15:09, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
On Monday October 13 2014 14:34:15 Chris Jones wrote:
Any scripts that make any assumptions on what $DISPLAY looks like are
flawed by designed...
My argument is not based on what some standard says about what DISPLAY
should or should look like, but
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:09 AM, René J.V. wrote:
> As long as there is documentation that's not contradicted/superseded by
> more recent/authoritative documents and that states that the 1st element of
> $DISPLAY refers to the X server host, using that information in code may
> not be the most f
On Monday October 13 2014 14:34:15 Chris Jones wrote:
> >> Any scripts that make any assumptions on what $DISPLAY looks like are
> >> flawed by designed...
> My argument is not based on what some standard says about what DISPLAY
> should or should look like, but the basic premise that extracting
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Chris Jones
wrote:
> My argument is not based on what some standard says about what DISPLAY
> should or should look like, but the basic premise that extracting
> information from $DISPLAY is just a bad idea and should be avoided.
Note that p5-x11-protocol has le
Hi,
Any scripts that make any assumptions on what $DISPLAY looks like are
flawed by designed...
I don't agree :
(and not being an English fully-native speaker myself I won't comment about
arguments with grammatical errors :P )
http://www.xfree86.org/4.0/X.7.html#toc4
http://www.x.org/archive
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:53 AM, René J.V. wrote:
> >The simple reason to why Linux does it one way and OS X another, however,
> >is that on Linux X11 is primary and gets "naming rights". on OS X, it is
> an
> >interloper and does not get to choose for itself how the system it's on
> >works or wh
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:50 AM, René J.V. wrote:
> Come to think of it, I can't (or maybe, refuse to) see a good, compelling
> reason why a local X11 server would have to use a non-human-readable
> $DISPLAY spec if it can be identified uniquely through :0 (or :1, :2 etc
> for subsequent instance
On 13/10/14 11:50, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
Come to think of it, I can't (or maybe, refuse to) see a good, compelling
reason why a local X11 server would have to use a non-human-readable $DISPLAY
spec if it can be identified uniquely through :0 (or :1, :2 etc for subsequent
instances). It's als
Come to think of it, I can't (or maybe, refuse to) see a good, compelling
reason why a local X11 server would have to use a non-human-readable $DISPLAY
spec if it can be identified uniquely through :0 (or :1, :2 etc for subsequent
instances). It's also how Linux manages things if additional user
33 matches
Mail list logo
