3 ms·

But linux filename basically allows any byte sequence except EOF and /, so I think it is "make" fault to not being able to support it. Other proper build tools

• patrec 6y ago
  Well, just because make is faulty, doesn't mean linux isn't too ;) Spaces -- ok. But there is absolutely no use case for allowing near arbitrary byte sequences in filenames, it causes no end of trouble, and it would have been trivial to fix in a non-disruptive manner ages ago (mount -o allowreallydumbfilenames, off by default).
• barumi 6y ago
  > But linux filename basically allows any byte sequence except EOF and / (...) Could/should/would... Even though UNIX doesn't impose many restrictions on file names that doesn't mean it's in your best interests to use any weird character in them. I mean, do you honestly believe it's a good idea to have file names that are 256-characters long, have line breaks in their name, and have substrings such as "sudo rm -rf /"?
  • dan00 6y ago
    The point isn’t if it’s a good idea, but that a program shouldn’t misbehave.
  • maple3142 6y ago
    > I mean, do you honestly believe it's a good idea to have file names that are 256-characters long, have line breaks in their name, and have substrings such as "sudo rm -rf /"? Yes. It is usually some badly written programs or scripts choke on space, newline other things. BTW, I would like to impose a restriction that filename must be valid UTF-8 string instead of random bytes.