This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: vim-7.3.003-1
- From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-developers at cygwin dot com
- Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:20:27 +0200
- Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: vim-7.3.003-1
- References: <20100820082433.GA28236@calimero.vinschen.de> <i4lqbd$s6v$1@dough.gmane.org> <20100820123708.GC11340@calimero.vinschen.de> <i4m0gv$7rj$1@dough.gmane.org> <i4m30p$7rj$2@dough.gmane.org> <20100820143317.GD11340@calimero.vinschen.de> <i4m5ro$5uf$1@dough.gmane.org> <20100820153937.GA844@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20100820183506.GA11775@calimero.vinschen.de> <20100820184059.GD17313@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
- Reply-to: cygwin-developers at cygwin dot com
On Aug 20 14:41, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 08:35:06PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Aug 20 11:39, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> Did we ever come to a consensus on what to do with the Cygwin cwd stuff?
> >> It sounded like people were reluctantly agreeing with my reluctant
> >> proposal to not set the windows cwd to the pipe pseudo-location unless
> >> chdir was explicitly called.
> >
> >I'm not really convinced that this is a good solution. It is somewhat
> >half-half, sticking to Win32 backward compatibility but not quite. This
> >hits Cygwin applications in the back in the first place. How many POSIX
> >tools actually call chdir? Most shells, but otherwise?
>
> I can't believe that I'm arguing for the Windows API but to counter the
> argument:
I'm filled with indignation! Go, stand in the corner for the rest of
this lesson!
> How many POSIX applications are confused by the inability to
> delete the current directory?
Honestly? I don't know. I don't think it's much of a problem that an
application might try to slip its CWD under its own feet. What's more
vexing is the inability to remove a directory at all, just because some
other process holds a handle without FILE_SHARE_DELETE as CWD. Very
non-Linux.
Still honestly, I don't think that this is much of a problem per se.
But it's really infuriating that we have to compromise a Linux-like
capability for a handful of "hybrid" apps, which can simply call
cygwin_internal if it's really necessary.
> I like that Cygwin allows you to do this
> now but I'm wondering how much pain we'll be giving to previously
> working hybrid Cygwin applications.
<Dr. Chaos mode>
Heh heh heh.
</Dr. Chaos mode>
> >Since the workaround I created originally doesn't work since Vista
> >anyway, we keep full Win32 backward compatibility and just give up
> >on the Linux-like capability to rename or remove a CWD, while still
> >maintaining POSIX compatibility.
>
> Which workaround doesn't work on Vista? The one in 1.7.6?
No, the one up to 1.7.5. Trrying to replace the CWD handle in the PEB.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat