public inbox for cygwin-talk@cygwin.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* 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).