From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: /bin/pwd versus built-in pwd Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 07:47:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010127104636.A31021@redhat.com> References: <3A64D197.514DD0FA@veritas.com> <200101172009.WAA11316@linux.> <20010117154318.D14952@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-01/msg01428.html On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 03:43:18PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 10:09:06PM +0200, Ehud Karni wrote: >>On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:56:23 -0800, Bob McGowan 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 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". I've checked in a fix for this. It will be in cygwin 1.1.8. cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple