Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <3D7FBAEE.7050401@etr-usa.com> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:51:42 -0600 From: Warren Young User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cygwin-L Subject: Re: Beginnings of a patch: /etc/hosts References: <3D7FB4E3 DOT 35AF1C1E AT pajhome DOT org DOT uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Paul Johnston wrote: > > Are you sure that "CYGWIN_9*)" correctly catches Windows ME? You might take a look at my alternate patch in the patches list. It doesn't rely on that sort of thing -- it relies instead on well-known environment variables: $SYSTEMROOT and $WINDIR. It still has some OS-specific knowledge in it, in that it knows that only NT-derived OSes define SYSTEMROOT and uses WINDIR as a fallback for 9x systems. I don't know which approach is superior. > However, I think adding this belt-and-braces check might be a good idea: I'm not a fan of the "if X, scream and die" bit in this original script or the one you've proposed. Postinstall scripts shouldn't fail. I think they should give best effort, and if they can't do what you want, they should simply quietly skip that bit. Besides, this patch may be put into some other postinstall script, and you don't want to avoid doing the other tasks in that script just because the /etc/hosts part can't find the Windows system directory. -- 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/