Web lists-archives.com

Re: gawk 4.1.4: CR separate char for CRLF files





On 8/9/2017 3:09 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/09/2017 06:03 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 08/09/2017 03:37 AM, Jannick wrote:
>>
>>> Which is a pretty much of a pain when there is no easy fallback solution
>>> provided in case a major change is applied.
> ...
>>> This is - to say the least - unpleasant in the light of what Cygwin claims
>>> to be, namely 'a large collection of GNU and Open Source tools which provide
>>> functionality similar to a Linux distribution on Windows' (from the top of
>>> the start website www.cygwin.com).
>>
>> On Linux, nothing strips CR automatically.  So on Cygwin, we behave the
>> same - nothing strips CR automatically on binary mounted data.
>>
>> And the fact that the change was made AND ANNOUNCED back in February,
>> but you are now only 6 months later complaining about it, is telling.
> 
> It was pointed out to me off-list that my reply can easily be mis-read
> in a much more negative tone than I intended, so I'm apologizing for
> coming across as mean (yes, I know, https://cygwin.com/acronyms/#WJM).
> I think I was trying to emphasize that complaints about the behavior
> change at the time of the change were expected (and there was indeed a
> reaction, although I was pleasantly surprised at the time that it was
> limited to just a few threads, so apparently not many people were
> negatively impacted - and that's a good thing).  But complaints about
> the behavior after six months are a bit unexpected.  But I guess not
> everyone keeps their software up-to-date on quite as frequent a
> schedule, so I shouldn't have been as surprised or reacted as harshly.
> 

I don't think you need to apologize, in fact your post stopped me from
posting similarly.

> At any rate, my advice continues to be the same: how would you deal with
> CRLF on a Linux system? That's the ideal way to also deal with it on
> Cygwin (we used to have gratuitous incompatibilities between the systems
> where the same command line on Linux did not have the same result as on
> Cygwin; but the change back in February was to get rid of those
> incompatibilities, even if it breaks scripts that were unwisely relying
> on the incompatibilities).
> 

The clue here is, does it only work for this type of OS?  If yes then it
isn't portable anyway but should it be?  And does it only work on this
type of OS because of an issue that could change as a result of a fix.
Cygwin has always been and will always be a work in progress.  The rule
of thumb "does it work on Linux" should be applied to all that you do
with Cygwin.  If it only works on Cygwin and not on Linux then the
chances are, something will change.

-- 
cyg Simple

--
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