* Re: Bash and CR/LF line-endings [not found] ` <452BE676.1050109@tlinx.org> @ 2006-10-10 20:16 ` Christopher Faylor 2006-10-10 20:20 ` Dave Korn 2006-10-10 21:10 ` Williams, Gerald S (Jerry) 1 sibling, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Christopher Faylor @ 2006-10-10 20:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin-talk On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 11:29:10AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote: >I welcome the change to "LF"-only binary support -- makes CYGWIN more >POSIX- (or linux-) source level compatible. "I, for one, welcome our newline overlords." cgf ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* RE: Bash and CR/LF line-endings 2006-10-10 20:16 ` Bash and CR/LF line-endings Christopher Faylor @ 2006-10-10 20:20 ` Dave Korn 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Dave Korn @ 2006-10-10 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Well, on the one hand...' On 10 October 2006 21:17, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 11:29:10AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote: >> I welcome the change to "LF"-only binary support -- makes CYGWIN more >> POSIX- (or linux-) source level compatible. > > "I, for one, welcome our newline overlords." > > cgf Great minds think alike! cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* RE: Bash and CR/LF line-endings [not found] ` <452BE676.1050109@tlinx.org> 2006-10-10 20:16 ` Bash and CR/LF line-endings Christopher Faylor @ 2006-10-10 21:10 ` Williams, Gerald S (Jerry) 1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Williams, Gerald S (Jerry) @ 2006-10-10 21:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linda Walsh, cygwin-talk Linda Walsh wrote: > Have been on linux for ~7-8 years, unix for 17+ and *nix > utils ~19. The only time I've run into CR-LF issues on *nix, > has been when transporting files to and from the Win or Mac > worlds (MAC using "CR" only). I guess you haven't been doing interesting enough things, then. :-) Try poking at various TCP/IP frameworks a bit. The first time I got a CR-LF from a pure Unix box (maybe 18 years ago) had me scratching my head. (Of course, that was before I even knew what an RFC was.) > Seriously, keeping Linux "LF-only" is useful to filter out > non-portable/non-native DOS files. I can't say that I entirely support that position. Just because I accidentally save my BASH script in DOS format doesn't make the content any less portable. If Cygwin BASH (on a binary mount) then accepts that script but Linux BASH doesn't, it's the two BASHes that are being non-interoperable. > I welcome the change to "LF"-only binary support -- makes CYGWIN > more POSIX- (or linux-) source level compatible. I also welcome "LF only" support in Cygwin BASH, as long as that's the behavior of Linux BASH. I'm also perfectly happy to add CRLF support to Linux tools, but that's an entirely different issue. gsw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-10-10 21:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <4C89134832705D4D85A6CD2EBF38AE0F7B1342@PAUMAILU03.ags.agere.com>
[not found] ` <452BE676.1050109@tlinx.org>
2006-10-10 20:16 ` Bash and CR/LF line-endings Christopher Faylor
2006-10-10 20:20 ` Dave Korn
2006-10-10 21:10 ` Williams, Gerald S (Jerry)
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).