X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:55:46 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: "run" changes behavior with cygwin-17.6 Message-ID: <20100818195546.GF11340@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <4C6C1582 DOT 1080801 AT acm DOT org> <20100818182412 DOT GA22698 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20100818185421 DOT GC22698 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20100818191340 DOT GB11340 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20100818191906 DOT GD22698 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20100818192238 DOT GA27567 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20100818193446 DOT GC11340 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20100818193940 DOT GA4358 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com 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.  Dropping the environment had roughly > >>> >>the same consequences way back when, after all. > >>> > > >>> >Except that not every program uses the windows environment.  This affects > >>> >quite a few native windows calls. > >> > >>It affects every program which calls CreateProcess or ShellExecute, for > >>instance.  This 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.  Maybe > >>> as a compromise maybe we could at least avoid cd'ing to the dummy > >>> location on entry to the first cygwin program. > >> > >>I disagree.  When do you change the directory to //?/pipe then?  The > >>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 -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple