This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Apr 3 09:56, Christopher Faylor wrote:
For 1.7, I think we ought to decouple /bin <> /usr/bin and /lib <>
/usr/lib. The rationale for keeping those linked no longer applies in
the modern setup.exe world.
Full ACK! However, this needs a bit of careful revisiting of some of
the packages. For instance, assuming the Cygwin DLL will go to /bin,
cygrunsrv should also reside in /bin when we do this, not in /usr/bin,
obviously. Right now I must admit that I prectically don't care if my
packages install the binaries in /bin or /usr/bin.
Yep. A few things off the top of my head:
1) the shells need to install both in /bin and /usr/bin. This is up to
the individual maintainers when they build their -1.7 versions, but to
take on super-duper important shell:
Should /bin/bash be built "statically" (at least with regards
libintl/libiconv/libreadline/libncurses)? Should /usr/bin/bash be
identical to /bin/bash and also built statically? Or should
bash-3.x.y-z.tar.bz2 for cygwin-1.7 have two separate (and different)
bash executables in it?
What if that tarball (with different /usr/bin/bash and /bin/bash) is
unpacked on a system where "legacy" /usr/bin->/bin mounts are present?
Or should some "important" set of DLL libraries be installed into both
/usr/bin/ and /bin, and then /usr/bin/bash.exe and /bin/bash.exe (and
/bin/sh.exe) can all be exactly the same, built using dynamic links,
just as /usr/bin/bash.exe is today?
Or "tough. you want to run /bin/bash, ensure /usr/bin is in your PATH"
2) build tools (netrel, gbs, cygport) might need a few additions/tweaks
to support any of the above.
I don't know. I assume I just took this as it is. I guess the
only reason to create user mounts to begin with was, so that any
non-privileged user can create mount points, too, for a pure
"just me" installation in a restricted environment.
However, that's not really necessary anymore with /etc/fstab.
So I agree, we can simply get rid of fstab.$SID.
No, please don't...I like my /desktop mount...