This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Forcing SYSTEMROOT (opinions needed)
Thursday, 03 May, 2001 Christopher Faylor firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
CF> On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 11:19:26AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 10:28:50PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 06:55:19PM -0500, Parker, Ron wrote:
>>> >>So we have to trade the possibility of someone wanting complete control
>>> >>of his environment versus the possibility of someone not specifying
>>> >>SYSTEMROOT but needing it for the program that is about to be run.
>>> >>Should I flip a coin?
>>> >Since the Winsock dll is dynamically loaded via LoadLibrary, would it
>>> >be possible to fill out SYSTEMROOT just prior to the load?
>>> Hmm. If we could be guaranteed that the program being loaded was a
>>> cygwin program we could.
>>> Or, maybe we don't care... This is a creative approach to this problem.
>>> I like it.
>>What about adding a CYGWIN env setting "[no]pamper" with default
>>setting "pamper"? We could add a function to Cygwin which is only
>>called when "pamper" is set. That function could be filled with
>>functionality which we _think_ are comfortable for users which
>>simply want to have a functioning Cygwin under all circumstances
>>and don't give a damn for purism.
>>The first entry into this function could be to add always
>>"SYSTEMROOT" and "SYSTEMDRIVE" to the environment.
>>I'm pretty sure we would get lots of further entries over the time.
CF> I'm not sure if you're 100% serious but this but I think that the number
CF> of CYGWIN environment variables is already uncomfortably high.
CF> This doesn't strike me as a CYGWIN setting. It's something that a
CF> programmer wants to be able to set in his own code. If I'm calling
CF> execl and only want four things in my environment, I should be able
CF> to do that without being overridden by a user's environment variable
CF> That's why I suggested some kind of API to control this behavior that
CF> could be used by a savvy (?) programmer.
so, what's the resolution? i vote for forcing SYSTEMROOT and
SYSTEMDRIVE and adding api.
or we could just wait for this savvy programmer to ask for such api
and add it then.
Egor. mailto:email@example.com ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19