Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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: <F76C9B2DA2FC4C4CA0A18E288BBCBCF708217CAC@nihexchange24.nih.gov>
From: "Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID)" <BBuchbinder AT niaid DOT nih DOT gov>
To: "'Mike'" <mikee AT mikee DOT ath DOT cx>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: RE: Why umount -A is a really bad idea
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:52:09 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-IsSubscribed: yes

At Wednesday, August 25, 2004 5:07 PM, Mike wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Colin JN Breame wrote:
> 
>> I tried this once, just to see what would happen.  I then spent the
>> next hour restoring the mount points.  I've learnt a valuable
>> lesson... 
> 
> Why would a 'mount -a' not work after your 'umount -a' to restore the
> mounts? 
> 
> Mike

Maybe because there is no 'mount -a' option?

However, IIRC, rerunning setup may recreate the default mount points.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/