Re: pwd vs $PWD, bash, cygwin vs Linux

[Peter Farley <pjfarley3 at yahoo dot com>]

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/