This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: CYGWIN=tty round 2
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 07:21:16PM -0400, Ryan Johnson wrote:
>On 22/05/2011 10:53 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>>On Sun, 2011-05-22 at 17:19 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>I don't think we saw anyone step forward with a valid reason why they
>>>needed to use CYGWIN=tty over something like "mintty".
>>>I've summarized the thread where Corinna asked why people used
>>>CYGWIN=tty over CYGWIN=notty below.
>>>I don't see any showstoppers here so unless people can provide specific
>>>examples of how this change would cause hardwhip, we'll be removing
>>>CYGWIN=tty in a snapshot near you soon.
>>I could add XWin:
>>And once again, using mintty is a solution.
>>Since mintty is the solution to so many of these scenarios, shouldn't
>>we make it the default terminal (IOW add mintty to Base and replace the
>>Cygwin.bat shortcut with mintty's)? The status quo just encourages
>>people to use a deficient terminal without any idea that a better one
>I would be happy to see mintty as the default. Since discovering it I
>essentially stopped using X because xterm was my main reason for firing
>However... isn't there some dire warning that gdb only will ever work
>properly (some of the time) from within a vanilla console window?
>Something to do with ^C handling?
>Mind you, I'd love that restriction to be lifted, but it sounded pretty
>hard and fast the last few times the topic came up. On the other hand,
>most casual cygwin users won't be needing gdb often, if ever, so that
>might not be enough reason to keep the console over mintty.
Can we PLEASE stay on topic?
This has nothing to do with CYGWIN=tty. If gdb didn't work in mintty it
wouldn't work with CYGWIN=tty either.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple