Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Mon, 7 May 2001 12:11:05 +0400
From:	egor duda <deo AT logos-m DOT ru>
X-Mailer:	The Bat! (v1.45) Personal
Reply-To:	egor duda <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Organization:	deo
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
Message-ID:	<147585893249.20010507121105@logos-m.ru>
To:	Christopher Faylor <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Forcing SYSTEMROOT (opinions needed)
In-reply-To:	<20010503133346.A5353@redhat.com>
References:
	<E94FF01DFF6CD31186F4080009DC361501F8C39D AT nttwr2 DOT tower DOT bldgs DOT butlermfg DOT org>
	<20010502222849 DOT A1238 AT redhat DOT com> <20010503111926 DOT Y24200 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
	<20010503133346 DOT A5353 AT redhat DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0

Hi!

Thursday, 03 May, 2001 Christopher Faylor cgf AT redhat DOT com 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> setting.

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:deo AT logos-m DOT ru ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19

- Raw text -