Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2001/10/09/14:57:57

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 14:58:43 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Ignore the cygwin environment variable if child of a cygwin process?
Message-ID: <>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20011009133655 DOT A25333 AT redhat DOT com> <1225778878 DOT 20011009224355 AT logos-m DOT ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i

On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 10:43:55PM +0400, egor duda wrote:
>Tuesday, 09 October, 2001 Christopher Faylor cgf AT redhat DOT com wrote:
>CF> I keep seeing people who have set the CYGWIN environment variable from the bash
>CF> shell.  This causes strange problems.
>hmm. on the first glance only 'ntsec' and 'tty' options may cause
>trouble when changed on-the-fly. OTOH, they're probably most important
>options in CYGWIN env. variable. if we can pinpoint those options that
>are really prohibited from changing during "cygwin session" we can
>ignore only them. but 1) there may still be "legitimate" ways to
>change such options; 2) changing other options may still produce
>unexpected results to the people who don't know what they're doing.
>CF> I wonder if it would be worthwhile to ignore the CYGWIN environment variable
>CF> if it is set in a process that is a child of a cygwin process.
>CF> The downside is that there are probably some situations where it
>CF> actually works ok to do this and that we'll end up screwing up people
>CF> who know what they're doing.
>it'd definitely screw some of my scripts. and what's most
>disappointing, i can't see any workarounds if such change is made. 
>CF> We could just issue a warning but I hate for cygwin to be noisy in these kinds
>CF> of situations.
>CF> Any thoughts?
>I hate to sound non-constructive, but i think we'd better leave things
>as is. current situation is not good, but i don't see any better

That's ok.  I wasn't exactly sure about the idea myself.  I do like the
idea of ignoring only the problematic settings but this might be too
much work for too little gain.


- Raw text -

  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019