On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Glynn Clements <gl...@gclements.plus.com> wrote:
> > Martin Landa wrote: > > > >> ... this would follow the apparently working method in GRASS 6. > > >> Maybe worth a try also in GRASS 7 at this point. > > > > > > > > > I had the feeling that this was the "consensus" (or at least with lack > of > > > clear dissension) we had reached: > > > > "consensus" is somehow courageous to say, bearing in mind that Glynn > > simply reverts any other solution regardless that it breaks the whole > > GRASS on Windows > > The reason I do this is because GRASS has a long history of dealing > with bugs using ugly hacks, which typically introduce > equal-but-opposite bugs. This then means that any attempt to fix the > underlying bug breaks everything. It also results in incomplete fixes, > which are then "fixed" further by adding yet more code, with each > iteration getting progressively uglier due to interactions with > earlier layers. > Yes, that's very true, there is lot of such examples in the GUI. Therefore Vaclav and I did some refactoring there but I would like to point out that during the refactoring the GUI was still *working*. > If something doesn't actually work, I'd rather everyone be aware of > that and try to find an actual solution, rather than just papering > over the cracks and pretending that the issue has been solved. > I think we all know about the issue and removing the ugly code from SVN doesn't solve anything, especially when there is no one who is willing to solve it soon. > E.g. if run_command() has problems with using a vertical bar character > in an argument, modifying specific cases to avoid using a vertical bar > doesn't fix the actual problem. > > Removing the shell from the equation fixes the actual problem (and > and breaks the rest so I wouldn't say it fixes anything. I understand you want to keep the code clean without any workarounds but you didn't implement better solution. I would suggest to remove the link to GRASS 71 on GRASS website unless someone is going to fix this soon. Anna possibly other problems related to the shell, e.g. ANSI-vs-OEM > codepage issues). Escaping arguments should fix that specific problem > (but not others), provided that we can accurately determine the > shell's rules (Good Luck With That; the bash manual runs to ~82 pages; > I've never seen anything like that for cmd.exe). > > -- > Glynn Clements <gl...@gclements.plus.com> > _______________________________________________ > grass-dev mailing list > grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev >
_______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev