This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Avoid collisions between parallel installations of Cygwin
On 10/16/2009 05:13 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Chuck's reply reminded me that I meant to reply here too.
- Should cygcheck show them (with a remark "orphaned") or should
cygcheck not show orphaned entries at all?
- Should cygcheck remove old entries as it goes along (implies not
printing them at all), or should it only remove old entries if
the user uses some "--clean" option?
When you say "old", do you mean orphaned? If so, I like the idea of
the "--clean" flag, though maybe it should be "--cleanup-orphans"? If that's
not what you meant, then I'm unsure of the definition of "old".
What I also didn't get is the result of the other two points.
- Do we still need a way to switch off using the installation key
in object names? If so, using a resource as proposed by Chuck?
If so, what about putting the functionality to change the resource
setting into cygcheck?
I think putting this in cygcheck is a good idea too. I agree with Chuck
on where to put this and how important it is to have.
- Do we still need a means to switch off the fingerprint creation?
This one, I'm not so sure about. If we really have an interest in the
fingerprint, we can't have an interest to provide an easy way to avoid
it. It should at least require to rebuild the DLL, shouldn't it?
I think this has fallen to a lower priority but also that the requirements (or
wish list) has also grown. So I think we can get away with delaying this for
Did I just basically "ditto" Chuck? ;-)
Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd. (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?