bash-3.1-7 bug

[mwoehlke]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 06:09:03PM -0700, Volker Quetschke wrote:
>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 04:46:28PM -0700, Volker Quetschke wrote:
>> (snip)
>>> Do I have to make the observation again that whether this is the case
>>> or not, it is not a primary goal of the Cygwin project to support these
>>> people?
>> Yes.  Did it ever cross your mind that the whole "Linux on Windows"
>> thing is pretty useless if it cannot be used in the "real world".
> 
> Death of Cygwin predicted?  Everybody panic and/or sip?

...As much as I agree with Volker's assertion (one user using Cygwin as 
a unix-like front-end for cl.exe, right here - although you'll recall 
that I'm also one of the ones that understands what Cygwin wants to be 
and never got tripped up by make (though in all honesty I haven't 
upgraded yet ;-) but only because I really don't like messing with a 
working build machine, and if 3.81 broke it would certainly be *my* 
fault))...

>> I mean, if people want to have a plain vanilla Linux thingy they can
>> just install it.  Grab a Redhat, Suse or Debian DVD and everything
>> works fine.
> 
> I suspect that the "Well, they can just install Linux (floppies, CDs,
> DVDs) if they feel like it" observation has been made several times a
> year for the last ten years.  It's obviously not a very powerful
> argument since Cygwin is still here and you can't really assert that the
> only reason it is here is because make understood MS-DOS paths or bash
> dealt properly with \r\n line endings.
> 
> I doubt that Eric will want to deal with the fallout of having bash not
> understand \r\n line endings but, if he does, it would be his decision
> and, again, I would support it 100%.  I am very eager to see things like
> configure scripts work faster and if we have to drop a few scared or
> lazy people along the way to accomplish that goal, that's fine with me.
> I have no problem at all with being a part of a smaller community which
> doesn't need to use notepad to edit their bash scripts.

...I have to agree that this is a different case. Changing makefiles 
that used DOS paths is one thing; you can make them work (like I do, by 
doing things 'right' in the first place), but if you've built a system 
on makefiles relying on DOS paths, fixing them can be painful and error 
prone. Whereas 'dos2unix <script>' is easy and reliable. So anyone that 
can't bring themselves to type that little line would definitely qualify 
as 'lazy' in my book. :-) Especially when Eric's other suggestion (add 
'\r' to IFS) is also available.

And just in case anyone *can't* live with Eric's latest patch, I still 
recommend finding out what Rodney is doing in the Interix version of bash.

-- 
Matthew
We apologize for the inconvenience.


--
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/