Subject: Re: Building cygwin32_ipc-1.03 for v1.0 - questions about v1
From: Chris Faylor <[email-masked]>
To: Doug Wyatt <[email-masked]>
Cc: Chris Faylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:46:18 -0500

On Fri, Nov 12, 1999 at 05:37:51AM -0600, Doug Wyatt wrote:
>I guess I've seen prior references to the relationship between Cygwin
>and MSVC, but I come from a long Unix background, and my referents
>tend to be from that perspective.
>[snip]
>The thing about coexistence of v1 and a development tree is that I'd
>like to keep them completely separate, rather than intermingled.  I
>consider v1 as my stable release, for now.  I'd like a wholly separate
>directory tree for gcc 2.95.2, and for playing around with things that
>might break something.  You're right, I can probably play around with
>the PATH to do most of what I looking for.  I did check to see if the
>symlinks allowed embedded $VAR references, and they apparently don't.
>
>It just seemed that more flexible use of the registry would open up
>possibilities.

If you come from a long Unix background I would expect that you would be
looking for UNIX-like solutions.  Playing with the registry is a
decidely non-Unix way of doing things.  Earnie has posted something
about using umount/mount to switch between two separate root
directories.

I'm not sure why it's necessary to have two separate root directories
when you can easily install gcc in some other location and just modify
your path.

I had thought that your original email was regarding using both B20
and v1.  If your goal is just to use two different compilers then
changing your PATH, is the easiest solution, just like it is on
UNIX.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to [email-masked]