Snipping this down to the core issues, Win32 folks may want to comment here... From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 8:13 AM Subject: Re: Apache 1.3.19 problems > > Last observation, and this is _critical_. Nearly _every_ unix based script > > 1. requires or prefers slashes > 2. may not appreciate d:/path syntax (looks like a network machine name) > 3. may throw up on names with spaces > > I just noticed you are heavy on cygwin or other faux unix tools. Here's the problem, > win32 generally just doesn't live with these. It does the following: > > if you execute a shebang program, and don't put "%1" (include the quotes) following > the program, it executes with the long name. If you put nothing, or include simply >%1 > with no quotes, is uses the short name (so spaces can't confuse the app.) And the > program is executed with backslashes, never slashes, since they sometimes confuse >win32. > > A similar thing happens using the registry and ScriptInterpreterSource. > > What about the following? Pure unix shebang? You get slashes/long names. %1? You >get > a short name. "%1"? A long name, both %1 flavors providing backslashes. Or allow >a $1 > for the unix behavior. > > I don't have a full and instant answer, but the missing slashes in the errlog message > sure suggest they were interpreted as quoting. > > The Win32 port is, and will continue to be, conformed to the WinNT model. Some >things > may not work correctly on Win9x, and support for unixish apps is not perfect either. > I'd be happy to look at this so users of 'unconverted' apps can run, but there are no > guarentees here. Any which way, a Win32 native app has far more problems with >slashed > file names (try dir c:/winnt for proof.) So support for the native shell wins over > trying to be everything to everyone. > > If we show this to be the problem, let's try to work out a semantic that is generally > easy-to-follow.
