From: Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com>
To: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: File name syntax (WAS: RE: FW: Can not config sshd)
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 16:49:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20000526194914.B24370@cygnus.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <392F0660.CFB8653@veritas.com>
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 04:18:56PM -0700, Bob McGowan wrote:
>Chris Faylor wrote:
>> On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 03:27:36PM -0700, Bob McGowan wrote:
>>>If the decision stands to change bash, doesn't that imply a need to fix
>>>the other shells too?
>>
>>Have you seen a lot of traffic about other shells having this problem?
>>I don't recall any.
>
>No. But then, I also haven't seen a lot of traffic about people using
>lots of //server stuff in scripts, either ;-)
I wouldn't expect people to report non-problems. How many reports do
you see of 'ls' working correctly?
>I was simply trying to point out a potential problem area, since any
>application (shell or otherwise) working in a UNIX environment does not
>need to worry itself about multiple slash characters anywhere in a path
>name. So, by implication, any application that uses paths, could
>manifest this problem. And since the application can be started from
>either a command prompt or a shell, the further implication is that any
>application handling paths would now need modification to be aware of
>this special handling requirement.
As far as I can tell, we are trying to address a specific problem in
bash by making a change to cygwin. While you can speculate that this
problem is rampant in many other programs, I do not believe that this
is the case.
In fact, for instance, I believe that zsh collapses multiple occurrences
of slashes so it actually does not have this problem. I don't know about
ash, but we can certainly fix this if so. I doubt that it does introduce
double backslashes by default, like bash does.
Zsh does have another problem in that it is not compliant with this:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xbd/glossary.html#tag_004_000_196
This URL comes from the "Single UNIX Specification" and it states:
>pathname
>
>A character string that is used to identify a file. A pathname consists
>of, at most, {PATH_MAX} bytes, including the terminating null byte. It
>has an optional beginning slash, followed by zero or more filenames
>separated by slashes. If the pathname refers to a directory, it may
>also have one or more trailing slashes. Multiple successive slashes are
>considered to be the same as one slash. A pathname that begins with two
>successive slashes may be interpreted in an implementation-dependent
>manner, although more than two leading slashes are treated as a single
>slash. The interpretation of the pathname is described in pathname
>resolution .
This issue has come up many times in the past. Neither cygwin nor
Windows NT is "non compliant" in the special handling of the double
backslash at the start of a path. There have been UNIX (or at least
UNIX-like) OS's which interpret paths with a leading // specially.
I normally am a big fan of fixing things in one place and I have been
known to stand on my head, play the ukulele, and spin counter-clockwise
in attempts to make cygwin behave more like UNIX. I'm just not
convinced that eliminating the use of a // is advisable.
cgf
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-05-26 16:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-05-26 14:51 Parker, Ron
2000-05-26 15:27 ` Bob McGowan
2000-05-26 16:00 ` Chris Faylor
2000-05-26 16:18 ` Bob McGowan
2000-05-26 16:49 ` Chris Faylor [this message]
2000-05-27 9:49 ` Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
2000-05-28 0:05 ` Robert McGowan
2000-05-28 3:51 ` Corinna Vinschen
[not found] <200005301721.KAA00107@cygnus.com>
2000-05-30 10:35 ` Chris Faylor
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-05-30 10:21 Parker, Ron
2000-05-29 6:14 Bernard Dautrevaux
2000-05-29 6:07 Bernard Dautrevaux
2000-05-28 8:14 Earnie Boyd
2000-05-28 9:14 ` Chris Faylor
2000-05-29 10:28 ` Andy Hare
2000-05-28 0:17 David Bolen
[not found] <200005262126.RAA23411@acestes-fe0.ultra.net>
2000-05-27 9:32 ` Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
2000-05-27 9:44 ` Chris Faylor
2000-05-27 10:15 ` Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
2000-05-27 17:07 ` Chris Faylor
[not found] <200005262150.OAA10858@cygnus.com>
2000-05-26 15:04 ` Chris Faylor
2000-05-27 16:27 ` AJ Reins
2000-05-26 14:27 Parker, Ron
2000-05-26 14:16 Parker, Ron
[not found] <200005262110.RAA09230@acestes-fe0.ultra.net>
2000-05-26 14:15 ` Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
2000-05-26 14:42 ` Chris Faylor
2000-05-27 16:19 ` AJ Reins
2000-05-27 16:50 ` Chris Faylor
2000-05-26 14:10 Parker, Ron
[not found] <200005261702.KAA22136@athena.veritas.com>
2000-05-26 10:21 ` Bob McGowan
2000-05-26 10:47 ` Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
2000-05-26 10:19 Earnie Boyd
[not found] <200005261701.NAA11863@acestes-fe0.ultra.net>
2000-05-26 10:10 ` Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
2000-05-26 10:01 Parker, Ron
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20000526194914.B24370@cygnus.com \
--to=cgf@cygnus.com \
--cc=cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).