This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Registry freedom

On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 11:18:00AM -0800, Doru Carastan wrote:
>>I can see why Wind River might have a problem since apparently you're
>>basing your Windows offering Red Hat's technology.  You probably don't
>>want to have to install your software into an existing commerical
>>directory that has the name "redhat" or "cygnus" in it.  However,
>>accomodating that really isn't a goal that I am very interested in.
>You are making a false assumption.

Are you saying that your Windows tools don't use Cygwin?  I was under the
impression that you used the DLL.  Oh well, live and learn.

>The Cygwin + custom GNU tools
>installer I created installs this tools for system wide use by various
>product installers.  The default location is %SystemDrive%\wrtools to
>avoid cluttering an existing C:\cygwin.

It would hardly be cluttering to produce an /opt/wrtools.  That's what
you'd do on linux or something similar.  You wouldn't create your own
bin directory somewhere off the root on UNIX.

>Some users might have various versions and is not a good practice to
>mess up what they have.  I really don't want folks to be creative and
>make changes to the stuff I rely on.  They can play with c:\cygwin if
>they want to.  I also advocate the slogan "you package it, you maintain

That's fine, but none of this is really a goal for cygwin as I see it.

>When the user starts a WR product installer he/she will be prompted for
>a location to install for that media.  The product install dir has no
>connection whatsoever with the location of the Unix emulator providing

Ok.  Then the mount table doesn't really matter at all.  Just ignore it.
Use /cygdrive/whatever for everything.

>Obviously you have total control over your distribution.  Probably
>other developers will see the value and be more open to this since it
>can simplify the debugging process.

I'm not sure what having other developers being more open to this might
mean since I'm not convinced in any way that it is a good thing.  I am
no more convinced now than I was the last two or three times this was

Or, let me put it another way.  I'm always open to inspecting actual
source code patches.  Until then, I think my stance on "good ideas"
should be well known in this mailing list.


Unsubscribe info:
Bug reporting:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]