Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <41828674.6090507@x-ray.at>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:05:40 +0200
From: Reini Urban <rurban AT x-ray DOT at>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; de-AT; rv:1.8a3) Gecko/20040817
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: coreutils rm nul
References: <41827684 DOT 7040007 AT x-ray DOT at> <20041029172609 DOT GC5890 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>
In-Reply-To: <20041029172609.GC5890@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes

Christopher Faylor schrieb:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 06:57:40PM +0200, Reini Urban wrote:
>>Would it be appreciated if coreutils rm would be able to
>>remove special windows files, like nul, aux, com and such, if it's 
>>really a file and no device?
>>
>>I'm working on such a coreutils patch for rm(1) only, not mv(1), ln(1) 
>>or unlink(3) from cygwin1.dll.
>>Should it go to unlink(3) instead?
>>
>>If the original proposer of the coreutils package, Mark, will not revive 
>>in the next months I might be persuaded to maintain it then.
> 
> Given the number of times I've mentioned the fact that we need coreutils
> with no response, I think it is safe to assume that it is still
> unmaintained.
> 
> Unless there are objections in the next several hours this package is
> yours.

The problem is if I really want to maintain such a beast.
Having maintained a patched sh-utils at my company (restricted 
password-less su and sudo extensions, centralized logging) I know what 
will happen...

> FWIW, I think that fixing unlink so that it can remove these kinds of
> files makes more sense than patching coreutils.  But, here again, Red
> Hat would probably need an assignment from you for this type of work.

unlink nul: since only/mostly coreutils (echo > nul) create such files, 
I thought is better to safe some cycles in cygwin1.dll for every unlink 
call - it's far too slow anyway, but that's not our fault.

The assignment is already on the way. But we have weekend and our post 
does nothing until monday.
-- 
Reini Urban
http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/

--
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/