Mail Archives: cygwin/2007/04/10/10:50:12
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 10:30:20AM -0400, Robert Pendell wrote:
>Adye, TJ (Tim) wrote:
>>Brian Dessent wrote on 09 April 2007 22:05:
>>>If you really want a compromise solution, you could modify run to not
>>>depend on cygwin1.dll at link-time but instead LoadLibrary() it at
>>>runtime, and if that fails fall back to whatever the native version
>>>would have done. Thus you get a single executable that understands
>>>posix paths if the DLL is in the PATH and still allows to you "run
>>>c:\cygwin\bin\bash.exe" (or whatever it is that you're currently doing)
>>>if the DLL is not in the PATH. Though that itself may cause
>>>confusion...
>>
>>That's a nice idea, but I suspect it would indeed cause more confusion
>>than any gain - especially when we're only talking about a 50k
>>executable. Imagine the program silently behaving differently if you
>>change the PATH. A nice "cygwin1.dll was not found" error message is
>>usually preferable :-)
>>
>>I hope that a separately-named (small) executable, perhaps installed
>>elsewhere, will be acceptable.
>
>I actually agree with cgf on this one but just an idea here. If that
>kind of function was implemented then a warning could be placed to say
>something to the effect of...
>
>WARNING: cygwin1.dll was not found in the path. Using native windows
>paths instead.
This is one of those cases where whether there is community agreement or
disagreement doesn't really matter. We don't need do discuss alternate
solutions for non-issues.
This isn't going to happen for any number of reasons so can we please
move on now?
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -