Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
From: "Gerald S. Williams" <gsw AT agere DOT com>
To: <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: True case-sensitive filenames
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:45:49 -0500
Message-ID: <GBEGLOMMCLDACBPKDIHFGEACDBAA.gsw@agere.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <20030121031844.GA4209@redhat.com>

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> It just seemed like it was really prone to causing massive user
> confusion for, IMO, little gain.

I understand you're walking a fine line between offering
true POSIX compatibility for Unix-types and getting beat
up with questions from people on the Windows side of the
house.

For me the gain is being able to port a project that uses
case to distinguish C implementations from C++ wrappers,
implementation from examples, etc. Currently, you can't
even untar such a project very easily. I'd really like to
be able to apply a simple patch file if needed (or better
yet, get any Cygwin changes merged into the project). But
this isn't practical if the project contains files that
are unrecognizable/unavailable to Cygwin.

> I was following this discussion to see if eventually there would be
> new ground covered but so far it seems to be treading on old familiar
> territory.  If you have to really stand on your head to do simple
> things like renaming a file it really makes me think that this is
> not going to be a robust solution.

I agree with the spirit. I'm not sure it will necessarily
make _rename() any less robust, though. I expect it would
allow some of the current special handling to be skipped
when hard links are available. Currently, the word "hack"
appears four times in that function. :-)

-Jerry