X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 14:18:11 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Inability to delete *or rename* CWD of any program driving me nuts Message-ID: <20100903181811.GA15694@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <20100903074512.GC1749@calimero.vinschen.de> <4C8120D0.7040503@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C8120D0.7040503@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 09:22:40AM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote: >On 9/3/10 12:45 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>If you read the announcement and followed the discussions on this list, >>you know why we had to do it. If it helps to share the pain, I don't >>like it either. Not the faintest. > >Of course I have, and I understand the workaround. What I don't >understand is why the pipefs technique (for which you had working code, >IIRC) wasn't used in the end. Was it the difficulty of changing >cygtools to use the new interface? The additional interface >complexity? Personally, I'd argue both are worth it. We're already using the pipefs technique. We just aren't making it the default. Since you are subscribed to cygwin-developers, the time to speak up was when this was discussed there rather than trying to rehash the discussion here. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple