Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 11:08:35 -0500 Message-Id: <200011151608.LAA20738@envy.delorie.com> X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT envy DOT delorie DOT com using -f From: DJ Delorie To: Karel DOT Sprenger AT compaq DOT com CC: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com In-reply-to: <70DB181F3302D21192700000F806F3A007435802 AT utoexc1 DOT uto DOT cpqcorp DOT net> (Karel DOT Sprenger AT compaq DOT com) Subject: Re: setup drops mount? References: <70DB181F3302D21192700000F806F3A007435802 AT utoexc1 DOT uto DOT cpqcorp DOT net> > You're right: restoring mounts would lead to trouble. But what would happen > if setup would honor my /var mount instead of reverting back to the var > subdirectory in the cygwin root? Or any other mounts for that matter. That would work, but setup doesn't even know about mounts. If someone wants to volunteer to add mount support to setup, I'm all for it. > I didn't mean to flame on setup (or its author). I think setup is a great > tool, but it would be even greater if it would use any existing mounts or at > least inform the user when it decides to ignore them. > > Please let me know if I can be of any assistance in this. http://cygwin.com/cvs.html -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com