From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Fred Kulack" To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: /bin/pwd versus built-in pwd Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 07:26:00 -0000 Message-id: X-SW-Source: 2001-01/msg00843.html Sorry, I know you get sick of seeing the same thing all the time (so do I, I just don't read every single post, nor have responsibilities here so it bothers me less). Anyway, my main question was > Are there any alternative utils that can give me the full name? Bob gave me the workaround to this. Thanks Bob! Excuse that I felt I need because I was 'slapped down'.... 8-) I did of course search the archives with several combinations of stuff. i.e.'pwd', 'pwd symbolic links', 'pwd full directory symbolic link', etc... Its still easy to miss things in there. I went back and looked again after your post, and finally found one line from Corinna that didn't show up in my searches above, but was present in the discussion thread that indicated it was a bug. http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2000-10/msg00906.html On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 02:56:23PM -0800, Bob McGowan wrote: >Based on the man page for 'pwd': > > "...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. I'd say that this has been discussed in the mailing list several times already. cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple