This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Added some interesting functionality to my cygwin sandbox
- From: Corinna Vinschen <vinschen at redhat dot com>
- To: cygwin-developers at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 10:15:30 +0200
- Subject: Re: Added some interesting functionality to my cygwin sandbox
- References: <20030630142932.GA6092@redhat.com> <20030630144146.GA25281@cygbert.vinschen.de> <20030630144716.GA23628@redhat.com> <1057010430.1115.1.camel@localhost> <3F00BCF7.2010305@rfk.com>
- Reply-to: cygwin-developers at cygwin dot com
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 06:43:03PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc.) wrote:
> Seems to me that we're trying too hard to accommodate both worlds
> in this discussion. The real goal is to get better UNIX support. This
> contradicts Win32isms. If it didn't, we wouldn't need this effort. All
> the paths in question are easily accessible via POSIX paths, so there is
> no need to try to accommodate those who would use Win32-like paths and
> expect
> them to act as such. The concession one must accept to use this option
> is POSIX paths. So I say just make a clean break and let it go at that.
> Of course, there will be those who try, fail, and complain. But part of
> this work includes the proper FAQ entries that we can all reference in
> response, right? ;-)
No DOS paths at all if cwd is below one of these mount points?
Yes, why not? Whoever is using this mount flag had to think already
about the consequences.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.