This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: pwd vs $PWD, bash, cygwin vs Linux
- From: Peter Farley <pjfarley3 at yahoo dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 09:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: pwd vs $PWD, bash, cygwin vs Linux
WHOA there. I think we have a slight failure to
communicate. I am NOT the OP, I was just chiming in
on the conversation (I should have said PMFJI right up
front, apologies for forgetting that).
That said, I understand your position better now,
especially with Dave's workaround (perfectly
acceptable to me, don't know about the OP).
I certainly did NOT intend to say or to imply that
cygwin maintainers should make any global fix to
address this issue. I just did not understand the
reason that bash was not the default shell. Now I do.
Thank you (and Dave Korn) for straightening me out.
Mea maxima culpa for not being clear in my question or
my comments.
Peter
--- Christopher Faylor
<cgf-no-personal-reply-please@cygwin.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 08:05:40AM -0700, Peter
> Farley wrote:
> >But what if it is *not* your Makefile,
>
> I just went back and reread this thread. It isn't
> exactly clear that this was not your Makefile.
> You mentioned a "test setup" which seemed
> to imply that you were using your own Makefiles.
>
> >but someone else's, e.g. the many GNU source
> >packages that expect bash behavior?
>
> Most GNU packages are interested in being portable.
> Assuming that every system out there is POSIX
> compliant is not portable. I have a couple of
> older systems that I use which would have the same
> problems as cygwin if you use PWD in a Makefile.
> Actually, CURDIR would also be a problem
> for them since they don't use GNU make. Since the
> workaround is trivial it would make sense to not
> rely on PWD in any package that is supposed
> to be disseminated widely.
>
> >Surely you don't intend that ordinary users (well,
> OK, anyone compiling
> >from a source package isn't really "ordinary")
> should modify every
> >package maintained by GNU in order to make it under
> cygwin, do you?
>
> I would expect a GNU-maintained package to accept a
> patch to eliminate a potential problem source.
>
> However, I surely don't intend to keep talking
> about this any further. I get the feeling that you
> want us (i.e., cygwin maintainers) to do
> something globally to solve this. We've been using
> ash for many years and we're not about to change
> anytime soon. You've been given enough
> alternatives now that you should be able to get
> things working.
>
> Cygwin is not guaranteed to be 100% POSIX compliant
> or 100% linux compliant. Sometimes we make
> tradeoffs because of Windows constraints.
> Since bash is noticeably slower than ash under
> Cygwin, we use ash as our /bin/sh. That produces
> some problems for non-portable shell constructs.
>
> cgf
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/