Bash 3.1.17(8) CR/LF problem

[Larry Hall (Cygwin)]

Malcolm Nixon wrote:
> mwoehlke wrote:
>> Right; non-standard behavior (and any non-binary treatment
>> of '\r' certainly counts!) should - and I might dare even to say
>> "must" - be disabled by default. Although in this case I can't
>> think of any reason why you would ever have a '\r' in a shell
>> script (other than as part of a line ending). Although if we
>> make any of this optional, then IMO it needs to be done the
>> right way, which is to just ignore '\r', at least at the end of
>> lines. That way we can ALWAYS read in binary mode, and
>> it isn't a major performance penalty.
> 
> I guess I'm 50/50 here. On one hand <CR> is most certainly
> not a standard line terminator character on Unix systems, but
> at the same time Cygwin advertises a "collection of tools which
> provide Linux look and feel" for Windows.
> 
> If pure Linux compatibility/restrictions was the only goal, then
> it could be achieved far easier by running Debian in a VM.


Not true.  Running a different O/S on the same or other machine
does not give the same interoperability that Cygwin does, regardless
of issues that come up where UNIX/Linux conventions clash with
Windows.  This argument is a red-herring.


> Instead Cygwin tries to add the power of the Linux-like tools
> into the cruftiness of Windows. Unfortunately I believe that implies
> supporting Windows/DOS crufty CR/LF files.

No one said that Cygwin tools don't support CR/LFs.  If they didn't,
there would be no text mounts.  Every text file generated by Windows apps
would need to be filtered before processed by Cygwin apps.  And bash and
all the other shells wouldn't work with text files in any way.  But they
do.  The fact that you haven't been able to bash to work transparently
in your environment is merely an indication that you don't completely
understand the problem yet (or haven't been able to communicate it well
to the list).  Obviously, whether bash changes in any way based on your
feedback is a decision completely in the hands of the maintainer.  But
what you've described so far isn't adding up and my guess is you're going
to have to offer a more convincing argument based on detailed facts relevant
to the problem you're having to sway the hearts and minds of those who do
the work.


-- 
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd.                          (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746

--
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/