Re: dpkg-source v2
* Joseph Carter (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote :
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 12:05:55AM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
> > Maybe it only leads to weird short file names, though... things a user
> > shouldn't see anyway...
> > C:\NUL\NUL ?
> No, the OS just refuses to create a file with that name. Or access it.
Bzzzt. In this case (file called NUL) you're accessing the windows
equivalent of /dev/null . Now, you can (and I believe the
recommendation is that you do) give any valid path you like to NUL. eg C:\NUL
is the same as C:\NUL\NUL . If you try to access it (or the slightly safer -
in that it doesn't crash DOS 6.2 even trying to create it - NUL: ) windows is
likely to do its usual trick of exploding all over the place.
(And yes, NUL and NUL: are pretty much identical barring my comment earlier
-Thom, thinking that hacking on portability libs is hazardous to sanity.
Thom May -> email@example.com
<doogie> I shaved more of my butt this time. it's got a few days
stubble growth, and it causes the most odd type of itching.
<Overfiend> doogie: I would imagine that it is not particularly pleasant
to have a persistent itch in your ass crack.
<doogie> the most fun part was figuring out how to shave my balls
without causing pain.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com