This is the mail archive of the cygwin 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: goldstar? Re: cygdrive prefix


Before I start, I want to admit that I think I may have
misinterpreted Andy Koppe's email. I now see that Andy may have been
defending *not* demarcating the rest of the windows world with a
/cygdrive prefix by just having all c:/ subpaths accessabile directly
from the / prefix. That's not my style, but its an OK choice to have.

In my defence, when people advocate (or appear to advocate as in this
case) having a c:/bin,c:/lib,etc., I get the impression that they want
to unify the installation of all non-OS packages into the one
location. In which case I would still stand by my argument. If this is
not what you were advocating, I am sorry that I have misinterpreted
your post Andy (you can take my star away now, I wont mind :-) ).

Which leads me to this:

Mark J. Reed wrote:
> Really, the two modes of operation don't talk to each other much. They
> just share a filesystem.  It works because they mostly leave each
> other alone.  There's no tradition in Mac land of creating a top-level
> "bin" folder and putting things in there, because there was no command
> line at all on the traditional Mac OS, so there was no point.  Which
> means the sort of conflicts mentioned by Shaddy rarely arise.

I'm a little confused? Wasn't I, by initial interpretation of Andy
Koppe's response, saying that having a /bin on Mac OS was ok because
it avoided the conflicts by being administered by MacPorts (that's the
correct name, thanks). In the same way most Linux distros do that with
dpkg,rpm,or other. Sure it could be administered by Fink or some other
package management system, but the point still stands, I wasn't saying
that there were conflicts on Mac OS at all.

Shaddy Baddah wrote:
> I don't run an Apple computer OS, but my observation is that they are
> based around a packaging system called 'port'? If true, that
> undermines your argument somewhat. Because then you are even with
> Linux/most unices, which of course carefully drop all exes into bin,
> libraries into lib, etc. In this case there is nothing wrong dropping
> everything into a single bin,lib,.. dir as you say, because there is a
> package management system there to hold manifests, handle collisions,
> allow uninstalls etc. etc. But without a package management system,
> you are asking for trouble.

Anyway, I think I'll stop commenting on Mac OS now because truth be
told, I've had little experience with it.


-- Problem reports: FAQ: Documentation: Unsubscribe info:

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