Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: RE: Default mounts : one redundant?
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 18:08:20 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Message-ID: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA7600C60C0@itdomain003.itdomain.net.au>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: "Bernard Dautrevaux" <Dautrevaux AT microprocess DOT com>, <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g4F8LpB19525



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Dautrevaux [mailto:Dautrevaux AT microprocess DOT com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 6:01 PM
> To: Robert Collins; Bernard Dautrevaux; cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: RE: Default mounts : one redundant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Collins [mailto:robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 9:50 AM
> > To: Bernard Dautrevaux; cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> > Subject: RE: Default mounts : one redundant?
> > 
> > 
> > This is off-topic, it belongs on cygwin-xfree AT cygwin DOT com. And
> > the answer
> > is in that lists archives.
> 
> OK so if I understand correctly, the redundant mount here is 
> effectively useless, as the "/" mount is done in binary mode, 
> but is created by the cygwin-Xfree post-install script 
> because "/" may be mounted in text mode.
> 
> My question was just motivated by the fact the mount option 
> were identical; I ask it here because this is in fact a 
> general cygwin topic: if I *need* something to be accessed in 
> binary mode (and don't want to look at all refering programs) 
> I must mount the tree binary, even if the mount may be, in 
> some cases, redundant. 
> 
> And that is not, IMNSHO, off-topic.

Asking about a particular mount point made by the X install script is
off topic. 

Asking about strategies for dealing with mount points is on topic. It
was not obvious that you where doing the latter. 

And actually, mounting in binary does not ensure binary access. It just
means that non-text/bin aware programs will default to binary.

Rob

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/