This is the mail archive of the cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: File name syntax (WAS: RE: FW: Can not config sshd)




At 12:44 PM 5/27/00, Chris Faylor wrote:


>On Sat, May 27, 2000 at 12:27:19PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
> >Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 12:27:19 -0400
> >To: "Parker, Ron" <rdparker@butlermfg.com>,
> >        "cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com" <cygwin@hotpop.com>
> >From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall@rfk.com>
> >Subject: RE: File name syntax (WAS: RE: FW: Can not config sshd)
> >In-Reply-To: <200005262126.RAA23411@acestes-fe0.ultra.net>
> >
> >
> >
> >At 05:22 PM 5/26/00, Parker, Ron wrote:
> >> > Right.  The significance is for UNC paths which can be easily 
> >> > access currently
> >> > using "//<server name>/<share name>" in Cygwin now...
> >>
> >>Understood.  My intention was that server:share would be converted to
> >>\\server\share before it reached the Windows file API's used inside of
> >>cygwin.  
> >>
> >>The entire idea was that many UNIX programs parse the colon paths as network
> >>paths already and this would bring cygwin a little more inline with the UNIX
> >>world.
>
>I missed this.  I don't think there are many UNIX *systems* out there which
>parse colons in pathnames.  Cygwin == a UNIX system.


BTW, this was Ron's comment not mine.  I also don't agree with it since I
don't consider NFS path syntax to be synonymous with UNIX path syntax.


> >Actually, I should have said "//<server name>/<share name>/<path>" to be 
> >clear.
> >
> >I guess as long as the NFS style syntax was supported by Cygwin and was 
> >supported in all places that the current UNC paths are supported in Windows
> >(i.e. *everywhere*), there shouldn't be any loss of functionality with this
> >change...
>
>I really don't understand what you are referring to.  When you mount a NFS
>directory you do use something of the form 'mount foo:/bar /baz' but the
>parsing of the colon is a function of mount not of the UNIX OS.  Programs
>like cp, cat, etc. do not treat colon separated filenames differently.
>
>Is this whole discussion really just about changin cygwin's mount command
>so that it accepts foo:/bar names?


 From my understanding of Ron's goals, I would say no.  He was proposing, 
AFAICT, that the UNC convention be replaced by NFS syntax for all paths.  
Since NFS path syntax is really just an artifact of mount in the UNIX world, 
I wanted to be sure that he realized the implication that this would have.
AFAIK, tar is the only GNU utility that attempts to parse an NFS path itself.
I don't know of any other utility that does this.  I'm really luke-warm about
the syntax change because I'm not really sure that NFS paths are more "UNIX-
like" than UNC paths.  However, my main concern is if such a change is to 
happen that some mechanism be maintained so that network shares could be 
accessed though a simple path without requiring a mount to make it work.  
Ron's response here was that the NFS syntax would fill that role, if I 
understood him correctly.  

Supporting NFS mount syntax in the mount table is a separate issue.  At this 
point, I don't have a problem with that idea although I also don't see an
overwhelming need.

Does this help clarify things for you?



Larry



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]