Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Message-ID: <19990525025320.9910.rocketmail@web118.yahoomail.com> Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 19:53:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Earnie Boyd Reply-To: earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com Subject: Re: /bin mount point and sh.exe To: Mark Peterson , cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Mark Peterson wrote: > I have chosen the "identity mount" setup and mounted > as shown below. I have mounted c: as /c as well, but in this case it > is umount-ed at the moment. > > It is important that sh.exe be able to find itself to execute shell > scripts. So I went so far as to put a few critical programs like sh, > ls, cat, rm, etc in > c:\bin to see if sh.exe could always find what it needs. > > This is the question: > At DOS with paths set up so that the H-i586-cygwin32/bin directory can > be found, should I be able > to simply type: > > sh ls > > and get a directory? As it is, sh cannot find ls in this way. Is this > bad syntax, or is this normal behavior? Yes, this is bad syntax. `sh -c ls' would give you what you're looking for. OTOH, if you have the paths in PATH in DOS format then at the DOS prompt you should be able to just type `ls' to get a POSIX style directory listing. === "Earnie Boyd" CYGWIN RELATED HELP: DOCUMENTATION: DLLHELP: ARCHIVE SEARCH: OR _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com