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: <23bcb8700408260629433c7dbd@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:29:56 -0400
From: Doctor Bill <docbill AT gmail DOT com>
Reply-To: Doctor Bill <docbill AT gmail DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Why umount -A is a really bad idea
In-Reply-To: <412DC006.8090907@x-ray.at>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <412CFBCB DOT 3040808 AT breame DOT com> <20040825210724 DOT GG29527 AT mikee DOT ath DOT cx> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 61 DOT 0408251750380 DOT 6014 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu> <412DC006 DOT 8090907 AT x-ray DOT at>
X-IsSubscribed: yes

It seems like there is endless confusions with cygwin mount's because
the name of the command is the same as the Unix mount command, and
some of the command line options are similar.  Has anyone given
serious consideration to renaming the command to something like,
cygmount?

                                        Bill


On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:48:38 +0200, Reini Urban <rurban AT x-ray DOT at> wrote:
> Igor Pechtchanski schrieb:
> > On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, 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
> >
> > Because Cygwin's mounts aren't the same as Unix mounts.  The mount and
> > umount commands on Cygwin modify the mount table directly, so that a
> > umount really is permanent.  However (and this concerns the OP, too), you
> > can save the mount table as the output of "mount -m", which you can later
> > use to restore the mounts.
> 
> not really.
> I used to do that quite often, but since /bin and /usr/bin are not known
> to cygwin anymore after umount -a (and not in the path) I came with this
> workaround.
> 
> #!/bin/sh
> # save mounts
> BIN=`cygpath -w /bin | sed 's|\\\\|/|g'`
> mount -m | sed "s|^mount|$BIN/mount|" | tee savemounts
> umount -a
> 
> # nano or $EDITOR will not work now to fix savemounts!
> 
> # restore
> .. savemounts
> 
> it will look like "f:/cygnus/bin/mount" now. This will be found, on NT
> at least.
> 
> 
> > For those unfortunate enough to have done a "umount -a" without saving the
> > mounts via "mount -m", the minimum necessary mounts for Cygwin to work are
> >
> > mount -sbc /cygdrive
> > mount -fsb c:/cygwin /
> > mount -fsb c:/cygwin/bin /usr/bin
> > mount -fsb c:/cygwin/lib /usr/lib
> >
> > (that is provided that you installed Cygwin in c:/cygwin).
> --
> Reini Urban
> http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/
> 
>

--
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/