This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: "run" changes behavior with cygwin-17.6

On Aug 18 20:47, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 18 August 2010 20:39, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 09:34:46PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>On Aug 18 15:22, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 03:19:06PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>> >>already does for the environment. ÂDropping the environment had roughly
> >>> >>the same consequences way back when, after all.
> >>> >
> >>> >Except that not every program uses the windows environment. ÂThis affects
> >>> >quite a few native windows calls.
> >>
> >>It affects every program which calls CreateProcess or ShellExecute, for
> >>instance. ÂThis includes GDB, tcl, run, run2, cygstart, etc.
> >
> > And, the current change affects every one of those programs and more.
> Right, that's a pretty big argument for favouring Windows integration
> rather than Linux compatibility here. So what would be the
> consequences of not allowing the current working directory of a
> running process to be deleted?
> >>> And, for that reason, I think we should reconsider this change. ÂMaybe
> >>> as a compromise maybe we could at least avoid cd'ing to the dummy
> >>> location on entry to the first cygwin program.
> >>
> >>I disagree. ÂWhen do you change the directory to //?/pipe then? ÂThe
> >>first time chdir is called?
> >
> > Yes.
> I'm not convinced such a compromise would be worthwhile, because it
> would forfeit Linux compatibility while still breaking some
> Win32-using programs. I think it should be one way or the other:
> either stick with the current approach, or always sync the Win32
> working directory up-to-date (except when that's not possible).

The question here is a bit tricky, me thinks.

1) Do we want as much POSIX compatibility as possible?

2) Do we want POSIX compatibility but not compromise on Win32 compatibility?

3) Do we want as much POSIX compatibility as possible, but are willing
   to compromise if it breaks backward compatibility in the Win32 realms?

Right now I tend strongly to 1, but I'm still open to 3 if the problems
are really too heavy.


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Problem reports:
Unsubscribe info:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]