Re: /bin/pwd versus built-in pwd

[Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 10:09:06PM +0200, Ehud Karni wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:56:23 -0800, Bob McGowan <rmcgowan@veritas.com> wrote:
>> 
>>  "...That is, all components of the printed name will be actual
>>   directory names -- none will be symbolic links."
>> 
>> I'd say this is a bug.
>
>Despite what Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> thinks, I'll say it
>is a real bug with critical implications.

Huh?  I never said it wasn't a bug.  Quite the contrary.

I suggested that people read the email archives.  Look for "pwd symlink".

>If you want to check if directories are the same, or in the same branch
>absolute paths must be used.  I have many scripts (all of them working
>on Linux and other UNIX's) that use `/bin/pwd` to get the absolute
>path.  If the current situation is kept (i.e.  `/bin/pwd` returning the
>path the shell used to get to this directory, not the absolute one)
>then it is a big immigration problem.

I have no idea what an "immigration problem" is but you're welcome, as
always to submit a patch.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple