Re: UNC and POSIX paths

[Andrew DeFaria <Andrew at DeFaria dot com>]

On 06/17/2013 08:12 AM, gmt@malth.us wrote:
> > Why not simply fix the "not very well written configure scripts and
> > makefiles"instead? BTW I've never come across a single one of those.
> > Where are you getting yours?
> Can't answer this offhand (aware you didn't ask me :P) but, under the
> misguidance of PM's like Gentoo(portage) and rpm(build), when combined with
> poorly and/or belligerently written packaging scripts, this can happen
> incessantly.  But that mostly only comes up when building Frankencygwins.
> Sometimes you can fix it by forcing something like --prefix=///usr/local.
I'm trying to understand the reluctance towards "fixing the problem" and 
instead the insistence on "putting a band aid on it". So in the above, 
why would you not instead do --prefix=/usr/local?
> A CYGWIN env flag to disable UNC paths, or graft them somewhere other than
> //, or an fstab-hack--basically anything allowing one to turn this feature
> off--would be a moderate blessing for a small number (greater than or equal
> to one) of people, but SHTDI, and this is endlessly proposed and
> insta-shot-down.
>
> At least one "merit-based" argument does recommend against implementing this
> -- a great many configure scripts test for whether // == /, which means
> packages could break if packagers happened to build while using the proposed
> anti-feature-feature (the inevitable response being, "shouldn't those
> packages just fix their broken configure scripts"? :P)
Yes, indeed. See above.
--
Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
If a mute swears does his mother wash his hands with soap?


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple