Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 10:52:34 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Add requirement for SYSTEMROOT to FAQ?
Message-ID: <20041007145234.GG7398@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20041007015310 DOT GA5938 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20041007082053 DOT GB21753 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20041007082053.GB21753@cygbert.vinschen.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 10:20:53AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Oct  6 21:53, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> Didn't we resolve that the need for SYSTEMROOT in the environment should
>> be in the FAQ at some point?
>> 
>> Joshua, could you add something about how SYSTEMROOT is required for proper
>> operation with winsock?
>
>That would be good.
>
>> Or, even better yet, Corinna could we force SYSTEMROOT to be used
>> somehow but masked if someone removes it from the environment?
>
>Hmm, usually applications which suffer from a missing SYSTEMROOT are
>spawned by a parent process which has explicitely created a new
>environment block for the child and then calls execvp.  So the new
>child is already missing SYSTEMROOT on process startup.  What about
>always adding SYSTEMROOT to the windows env created in build_env,
>if it's missing?

That's what I was thinking.  And then lying about its existence if
someone queries the environment via getenv and SYSTEMROOT is "not
supposed to be there".

What an amazingly lame requirement...

cgf

--
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/