This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Can someone explain the 'obvious' to me...or is it a Grimm's Bro. tale...?
- From: Tim Prince <timothyprince at sbcglobal dot net>
- To: "linda w \(cyg\)" <cygwin at tlinx dot org>, <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:08:01 -0800
- Subject: Re: Can someone explain the 'obvious' to me...or is it a Grimm's Bro. tale...?
- References: <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: tprince at computer dot org
On Sunday 09 March 2003 18:04, linda w \(cyg\) wrote:
> I really _think_ (maybe I don't know what I want), but I think I
> want to setup my cygroot -> c:\.
> Now I know this isn't recommended, but why/whynot? The
> only reason I heard, which sounded a bit weak, was, "Well what if
> some new program comes in and creates a /usr, /var, /tmp...etc
> TLD? Then it might stomp on Cygwin files. Is that the only reason
> because some program may someday write into those directories and
> may write files with the same names into those directories?
Yes, I've had occasion to take advantage of the way cygwin allows me to
decide when it should be in control of my Windows environment. Most often,
when I am using non-cygwin compilers, I simply open the Windows command box
for that compiler, then run cygwin.bat to get both active. Apparently, our
customers must be doing the same; we're eye to eye at least on the subject of
keeping gnu bash and make in control. When I submit compiler bug reports on
commercial compilers, I simply pass along a copy of the standalone gmake and
the Makefile. More and more people will be accepting cygwin, if only for the
better throughput of gnu make, but no commercial software outfit accepts a
bug report unless you demonstrate it outside of cygwin.
When I had to use MKS, I could run that in one window, and cygwin in its
window, with the standard default setups. As you may have noticed from the
list, we get confused enough as it is when they have alternate versions
of cygwin applications, such as perl.
It used to be that cygwin dejagnu worked better when installed with /bin at
the root of its drive, but those problems have been fixed. Once, during the
life of my current hard drive (2 years, so far), my cygwin installation
became sufficiently aged that the standard upgrade didn't take well, so I
blew away all the pieces installed in c:\ and went with the default.
This exchange today has been weird, with people answering your posts an hour
before they come on line.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html