RE: ls /dev/*

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bobby McNulty > Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 5:43 PM > Sounds like a winner. > I'd go along with having cygdrive changed to dev. > dev holds all the devices, like aux, con, and others. > lpt So why

Re: ls /dev/*

Actually, please don't. I think you misinterpret the discussion in cygwin-developers. Now that you've reacquainted me with the discussion, I remember why it wasn't applied as-is. My plan was for /dev to go away as a special mount. Now that mknod works, this is more doable than it was in 2002. W

Re: ls /dev/*

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Reini Urban wrote: > Sam Steingold schrieb: > > > > * Christopher Faylor [2004-11-03 10:18:18 -0500]: > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 09:08:44AM -, Chris January wrote: > > > > > > > > > * Christopher Faylor [2004-11-02 15:01:13 -0500]: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov

Re: ls /dev/*

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Rolf Campbell wrote: > Andrew DeFaria wrote: > > > While, you are welcome to redefine /cygdrive any way you want, the unix > > > paradigm does not put filesystems under /dev. That is for devices. > > To me, a disk drive IS a device. YMMV! :-) > > A disk drive is a device, but /

Re: ls /dev/*

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Sam Steingold wrote: > why isn't /dev a more "usual" directory? > cd /dev, ls /dev all fail, while > cat /dev/clipboard works. HTH, Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/

Re: ls /dev/*

Andrew DeFaria wrote: While, you are welcome to redefine /cygdrive any way you want, the unix paradigm does not put filesystems under /dev. That is for devices. To me, a disk drive IS a device. YMMV! :-) A disk drive is a device, but /cygdrive/c is not a disk-drive. It's a file-system contained

Re: ls /dev/*

Sam Steingold schrieb: * Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-03 10:18:18 -0500]: On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 09:08:44AM -, Chris January wrote: * Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-02 15:01:13 -0500]: On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 02:55:39PM -0500, Sam Steingold wrote: why isn't

Re: ls /dev/*

> * Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-03 10:18:18 -0500]: > > On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 09:08:44AM -, Chris January wrote: >>> > * Christopher Faylor >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-02 15:01:13 -0500]: >>> > >>> > On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 02:55:39PM -0500, Sam Steingold wrote: >>>

RE: ls /dev/*

On Wednesday, November 03, 2004 9:32 AM, Andrew DeFaria wrote [--- cut ---] > To me, a disk drive IS a device. YMMV! :-) [--- cut ---] Wouldn't the 'device' listings need to be more like the 'Volume' listings below (as opposed to the drive letters)? \\.\Volume{a58472f0-b0cd-11d8-aba8-806d6172696f

RE: ls /dev/*

> -Original Message- > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Andrew DeFaria > Sent: 03 November 2004 15:38 > The question of "should" is subjective I would think. I worry > sometimes, > since /dev is "special" and a "pseudo" directory that what > I'm doing my > break things in some manner. T

Re: ls /dev/*

Andrew DeFaria wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: Sorry. I should have read further. Apparently the OP just wants *something* in /dev even if it is not what "should" be there. The question of "should" is subjective I would think. I worry sometimes, since /dev is "special" and a "pseudo" directory

RE: ls /dev/*

> On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 09:08:44AM -, Chris January wrote: > >> > * Christopher Faylor > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-02 > 15:01:13 -0500]: > >> > > >> > On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 02:55:39PM -0500, Sam Steingold wrote: > >> >>why isn't /dev a more "usual" directory? > >> >>cd /dev, ls /dev

Re: ls /dev/*

Christopher Faylor wrote: On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 09:52:13AM -0500, Sam Steingold wrote: * Andrew DeFaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-02 22:07:41 -0800]: Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 02:55:39PM -0500, Sam Steingold wrote: why isn't /dev a more "usual" directory? cd /dev, ls /d

Re: ls /dev/*

Christopher Faylor wrote: Sorry. I should have read further. Apparently the OP just wants *something* in /dev even if it is not what "should" be there. The question of "should" is subjective I would think. I worry sometimes, since /dev is "special" and a "pseudo" directory that what I'm doing my

Re: ls /dev/*

On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 03:20:08PM -, Dave Korn wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor >> Sent: 03 November 2004 15:13 > >> On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 10:07:41PM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote: > >> >Actually I change the cygdrive prefix to dev. Jus

Re: ls /dev/*

Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 10:07:41PM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 02:55:39PM -0500, Sam Steingold wrote: why isn't /dev a more "usual" directory? cd /dev, ls /dev all fail, while cat /dev/clipboard works. No one has implement

Re: ls /dev/*

On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 10:12:52AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 10:07:41PM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote: >>Christopher Faylor wrote: >> >>>On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 02:55:39PM -0500, Sam Steingold wrote: >>> why isn't /dev a more "usual" directory? cd /dev, ls /dev

Re: ls /dev/*

On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 09:52:13AM -0500, Sam Steingold wrote: >> * Andrew DeFaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-02 22:07:41 -0800]: >> >> Christopher Faylor wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 02:55:39PM -0500, Sam Steingold wrote: >>> why isn't /dev a more "usual" directory? cd /dev, l

RE: ls /dev/*

> -Original Message- > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor > Sent: 03 November 2004 15:13 > On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 10:07:41PM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote: > >Actually I change the cygdrive prefix to dev. Just seems to > make sense > >to me that C: would be /dev/c as appo

Re: ls /dev/*

On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 09:08:44AM -, Chris January wrote: >> > * Christopher Faylor >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-02 15:01:13 -0500]: >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 02:55:39PM -0500, Sam Steingold wrote: >> >>why isn't /dev a more "usual" directory? >> >>cd /dev, ls /dev all fail, while

RE: ls /dev/*

> > * Chris January <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-03 09:08:44 +]: > > > >> > * Christopher Faylor > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-02 > 15:01:13 -0500]: > >> > > >> > On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 02:55:39PM -0500, Sam Steingold wrote: > >> >>why isn't /dev a more "usual" directory? > >> >>cd /dev,

Re: ls /dev/*

On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 10:07:41PM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: > >>On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 02:55:39PM -0500, Sam Steingold wrote: >> >>>why isn't /dev a more "usual" directory? >>>cd /dev, ls /dev all fail, while >>>cat /dev/clipboard works. >> >>No one has implemented t

Re: ls /dev/*

> * Andrew DeFaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-02 22:07:41 -0800]: > > Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 02:55:39PM -0500, Sam Steingold wrote: >> >>> why isn't /dev a more "usual" directory? >>> cd /dev, ls /dev all fail, while >>> cat /dev/clipboard works. >> >> No one has i

Re: ls /dev/*

> * Chris January <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-03 09:08:44 +]: > >> > * Christopher Faylor >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-02 15:01:13 -0500]: >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 02:55:39PM -0500, Sam Steingold wrote: >> >>why isn't /dev a more "usual" directory? >> >>cd /dev, ls /dev all fail,

RE: ls /dev/*

> > * Christopher Faylor > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-02 15:01:13 -0500]: > > > > On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 02:55:39PM -0500, Sam Steingold wrote: > >>why isn't /dev a more "usual" directory? > >>cd /dev, ls /dev all fail, while > >>cat /dev/clipboard works. > > > > No one has implemented the spec

Re: ls /dev/*

Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 02:55:39PM -0500, Sam Steingold wrote: why isn't /dev a more "usual" directory? cd /dev, ls /dev all fail, while cat /dev/clipboard works. No one has implemented the special handling required for /dev which would enable things like opendir/readdir

Re: ls /dev/*

> * Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-02 15:01:13 -0500]: > > On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 02:55:39PM -0500, Sam Steingold wrote: >>why isn't /dev a more "usual" directory? >>cd /dev, ls /dev all fail, while >>cat /dev/clipboard works. > > No one has implemented the special handling requir

Re: ls /dev/*

On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 02:55:39PM -0500, Sam Steingold wrote: >why isn't /dev a more "usual" directory? >cd /dev, ls /dev all fail, while >cat /dev/clipboard works. No one has implemented the special handling required for /dev which would enable things like opendir/readdir or cd to work. cgf --