Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 12:42:05 +0400
From: Andrey Repin <anrdaemon@freemail.ru>
Reply-To: Andrey Repin <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Message-ID: <1978689445.20120510124205@mtu-net.ru>
To: "Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E]" <BBuchbinder@niaid.nih.gov>,
        cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: 'cmd /C start cmd' no longer non-blocking (base-cygwin 3.1-1), but used to work (in base-cygwin 3.0-1)
In-Reply-To: <0105D5C1E0353146B1B222348B0411A20A6E685C27@NIHMLBX02.nih.gov>
References: <4C337258C4FF8145842DBA13279005D882F882@039-SN1MPN1-001.039d.mgd.msft.net> <759745567.20120505153106@mtu-net.ru> <0105D5C1E0353146B1B222348B0411A20A6E685C27@NIHMLBX02.nih.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com

Greetings, Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E]!

> Question #1:

> Why not use cygstart?

> The only reason I ever use cmd /c start is to use the /wait option of start,
> which is exactly not what you want.  (Indeed, I wouldn't mind it if a --wait
> option was added to cygstart.  Hint.  Hint.)

> Question #1.1:

> Are you using the /wait option of cmd /c start?

> Question #2:

> Is there a reason that cygstart wasn't suggested earlier?

> (That's not intended as a criticism.  I just want to know why in case there
> was one.)

For non-interactive process it's an overkill, IMO.
run.exe has sufficient amount of features.
But, I think, it's more a problem of expected behavior vs. choice of tools.

The behavior expected was achievable, but not using the chosen tools.


--
WBR,
Andrey Repin (anrdaemon@freemail.ru) 10.05.2012, <12:39>

Sorry for my terrible english...


--
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