Re: Unexpected behavior from cygpath command

[Andrey Repin <anrdaemon@yandex.ru>]

Greetings, Lee!

>>> I think on both systems the handling of 8.3 names is configured
>>> differently. You can check this with the Window command fsutil. (This
>>> command requires elevated permissions)
>>>
>>> I get the following output on my system.
>>>
>>> C:\WINDOWS\system32>fsutil 8dot3name query d:
>>> The volume state is: 0 (8dot3 name creation is enabled).
>>> The registry state is: 2 (Per volume setting - the default).
>>
>> Thanks, I think this is very interesting, I did not know that such a setting
>> existed.  It was indeed disabled for my E: drive.  However, after enabling
>> it I still can’t get “cygpath -d" to work as expected.

> Do the 8.3 names exist?
>   dir E:\ /n /x

> ..wondering if you have to recreate the file names to get “cygpath -d" to work

Wondering, why anybody would use 8.3 names in XXI century.
I've consciously disabled creation of 8.3 names for all but system volumes on
all systems in my reach, and never had to look back.

But if you absolutely must…

fsutil file setshortname <file> <name>

Do note that such name can be literally anything. This is primary reason I
disable them. To reduce amount of confusion in my daily routine.


-- 
With best regards,
Andrey Repin
Monday, November 18, 2019 0:00:42

Sorry for my terrible english...
--
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