This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Has CR/LF and cat problem with textutils-2.0 been solved?
- To: "'cygwin at sources dot redhat dot com'" <cygwin at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: Has CR/LF and cat problem with textutils-2.0 been solved?
- From: Chris Faylor <cgf at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 13:01:46 -0400
- References: <779F20BCCE5AD31186A50008C75D99791717AE@silldn_mail1.sanwaint.com>
- Reply-To: cygwin at sources dot redhat dot com
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 02:30:31PM +0100, Fifer, Eric wrote:
>>This was my point. We fixed ash to do the right thing and I've been
>>waiting patiently for the bash maintainer to fix bash as well.
>
>Is it possible to get a better idea of what the "right thing" is?
The "right thing" is for shells to read their input in text mode. How
many times does this have to be repeated?
>+ Perl has a similar backtick syntax, but is fine handling
> binary data. I think it would be wrong to cripple its
> binary abilities by setting text mode on backtick input.
> However, as cat works now, on a text mount this will fail:
Perl is not a shell. We have an immediate problem: bash. bash needs to
have its back tick handling "fixed" (I hate to characterise accomodating
this CRLF nonsense as fixing anything). I asked the *cygwin* bash
maintainer to do this months ago and he has not been responsive in doing
this. So, I'm looking for another *cygwin* bash maintainer.
There is no reason to throw perl, python, awk, sed, or gnuplot into the
mix and theorize about a grand unified plan for what to do whenever
program 'foo' finds a backtick. We just need someone who is willing to
make the changes to bash.
cgf
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com