RE: 2.10.0: Cygwin now can not work well with a file in dos format.

["Soegtrop, Michael" <michael.soegtrop@intel.com>]

Dear Michel,

>   1. Where in the release notes is this mentioned so that I can try to ensure that I
> find out about future changes?

As far as I can tell such things are announced here on this mailing list with subject "[ANNOUNCEMENT]". This specific change was announced here:

https://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2017-02/msg00152.html

You can search the mailing list for ANNOUCEMENT SED here:

https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/

>   2. Various "solutions" have been noted for gawk in related emails - all require
> minor but pervasive code changes.
>       Are there any similar solutions for the other tools besides scattering "tr" all
> over the place?

I haven't tried it but according to the release note above this depends on the mount type. It might help to mount your Windows text files in a mount with the text flag set. Binary files should still work on such mounts - as far as I can tell this mount flag has the effect that the binary / text flag to e.g. fopen makes a difference. If you have success with this, I would be interested to learn about it.

>       Also, I don't recall seeing related discussions in this mail-list.  Would these
> have taken place in
>       another Cygwin-developer-focused mail-list?

It has been discussed extensively in February and June last year on this list.

>   3. Is there any chance of Cygwin providing a pervasive file behaviour control
> switch for all the affected tools
>      that have been used generally for text rather than binary data handling?

As stated above, the intended mechanism seems to be to give this hint in the mount tables. You might also want to read through the lengthy discussion on the topic in June last year.

>   4. Would MSYS be better for those of us who are trying to supplement
> Windows rather than running Linux
>        on Windows?

I am building complex Linux centric projects for MinGW on Cygwin. Although this is the intended purpose of MSYS2, for me Cygwin works better. Most of the configure and makefiles I have to handle didn't go very far with MSYS2, while with Cygwin I needed only very minor patches here and there. Maybe things changed meanwhile - I tested this about 3 years ago and am happy with Cygwin since then. But I can say that I run CI tests with the latest Cygwin version daily and the SED change was the only Cygwin change which broke my builds in the last 3 years. It could definitely be substantially worse. So while one can discuss some decisions of the Cygwin team, it appears to me that they took the right decisions.

Best regards

Michael

Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Christian Lamprechter
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple