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
Message-ID: <3D80C6EE.9060206@etr-usa.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:55:10 -0600
From: Warren Young <warren AT etr-usa DOT com>
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 <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: Beginnings of a patch: /etc/hosts
References: <20020912110153 DOT 20069 DOT qmail AT web21009 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Nicholas Wourms wrote:
>>>Brilliant to see so much progress on this!
>>>Are you sure that "CYGWIN_9*)" correctly catches Windows ME?
>>
>>No, I'm not.  I'm incorporating Warren Young's suggestion.  Unless
>>someone
>>with ME can confirm that 'uname -s' returns CYGWIN_9*?  Nicholas?
> 
> Nope, it returns "CYGWIN_ME-4.90"

Okay, two possibilities now.

One is to add a special case for ME.  It occurs to me that this is 
somewhat brittle -- who's to say this won't break again when yet another 
flavor of Windows comes out?  (<rhetoric>Why, Microsoft, oh why, are 
version numbers so offensive in thy sight?</rhetoric>)

The other is to go with my environment variable approach.  I'm pretty 
sure SYSTEMROOT is automatically defined on NT; it can be removed by a 
determined user, of course.  Can anyone make such a claim for WINDIR on 
9x type systems?  The variable exists on the Win98 box in my office.

I agree with the previous posts about letting people monkey-wrench the 
system if they're determined to, for what that's worth.  I think that 
the protection of checking that the directory name we come up with 
exists is sufficient protection -- if it exists, assume that it's the 
correct directory.  If it's not a directory, then we can safely assume 
that something's hosed and refuse to make the symlinks.


--
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/