On Oct 27, 2005, at 9:21 AM, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
As for the linefeeds, I think the correct solution is to fix up the
line feeds for the tars and not the zips using Ant's <FixCRLF>
task. I
believe that for shell-emulation environments on Windows that the
linefeeds should still be CRLF, not LF, but could somebody confirm
that?
That seems to be heading down a path of different versions for
different
platforms. That would be a new departure and possibly not the correct
thing for a bug fix release.
I thought it was generally accepted that the .tar.gz files were
intended for Unix-related platforms, and zips were intended for use
with Windows. No?
The last release I was trying out the release targets on different
platforms, and what I *thought* I ended up posting as the release
candidate were the .tar.gzs that I built on a Linux box and the .zips
that I built on the Windows box. But, from Bryan's latest post, now
I'm not sure that is true, or even that the line feeds were
guaranteed to be one way or the other on the Linux box that I was using.
I'd file a JIRA for the right behavior, but I'm not sure we have an
agreement on what the expected line feeds for each archive should be.
Should we:
- Try to maintain consistency with previous releases, at least for
bug fix releases?
- Or is it an acceptable bug fix to have LFs on shell scripts for
both archives for this release? And, will that break shell emulators
for Windows (e.g. Cygwin, there are others) or not? I don't have
Cygwin installed anywhere right now, so I can't verify that immediately.
- If not, CRLFs for .sh for zips but not tar.gzs? or is that
disagreeable because that introduces a difference between the archives?
andrew
