Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001218121156.0218be60@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:15:27 -0500
To: M4um AT aol DOT com, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
Subject: Re: #includes not being processed across network 
In-Reply-To: <ad.47b77f1.276f9f03@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 12:10 PM 12/18/2000, M4um AT aol DOT com wrote:
>Dear Sir: 
>
>In response to:
>
> >>Found: D:\Cygwin\bin\sh.exe
> >>Warning: d:\BIN\sh.exe hides D:\Cygwin\bin\sh.exe
> >>Found: \bin\sh.exe
> >>Warning: d:\BIN\sh.exe hides \bin\sh.exe
>
> >Its not at all obvious that d:\bin\sh.exe is equivalent to 
> >d:\Cygwin\bin\sh.exe.  Is it?  If so, for maintainability reasons,
> >I'd recommend either using a mount or symbolic link or something to 
> >get a sh.exe into /bin.
>
>The two copies of sh.exe are identical.  You'll note my comment in the stream 
>immediately after your comment which says: "(***NOTE: The two copies of 
>sh.exe above are identical.)"


Guess I missed that.  Sorry.  I don't know why you're seeing what you're 
seeing unfortunately though.  Good luck.


>Until I get the compiler working across the net, I am avoiding the use of 
>links just to make sure that they don't complicate the problem.


I can understand that philosophy although in this case, using mounts or a 
symlink for /bin/sh wouldn't be a problem.  Still, there's no problem with
a copy either so long as you keep track of it.


>Thanks,
>John McDonald



Larry Hall                              lhall AT rfk DOT com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
118 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple