This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: /etc/profile - futile try to predict order of execution (Please inform maintainer of 00xfree.sh)
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-rcm at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-xfree at cygwin dot com
- Cc: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:01:35 -0400
- Subject: Re: /etc/profile - futile try to predict order of execution (Please inform maintainer of 00xfree.sh)
- References: <NGBBLLIAMFLGJEOAJCCEMEFBDEAA.email@example.com> <Pine.GSO.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20030919211128.GA25109@redhat.com> <Pine.GSO.email@example.com>
- Reply-to: cygwin-xfree at cygwin dot com, cygwin at cygwin dot com
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 05:23:40PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 04:59:07PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>> >Speaking of your machine, could this be because you're using Win98?
>> >(Checking) Bingo! Somehow, on Win98 find traverses files in unsorted
>> >order, i.e., the order they were created.
>> Which is acceptable behavior, as I'm sure you know. You can't rely on
>> any kind of predictable ordering behavior from find, AFAIK.
>Yes, it's acceptable, but I guess I'm not the only one spoiled by Win2k
>(judging by the contents of /etc/profile).
When I was debugging the never-ending "find misses the last directory"
problem, I was actually surprised to see that everything was returned in
alphabetic order. It is nice to see predictable behavior in
opendir/readdir. Too bad it isn't part of SUSv3.
>The reason I even tried to raise this point was that some scripts
>apparently did rely on this behavior, and I was asking whether, perhaps,
>/etc/profile should call these scripts in alphabetical order to satisfy
Yes, I understand why you made the point and I agree 100%. I was just
trying to forestall any "Cygwin should fix this" type of reasoning.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html