Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 11:07:37 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygapp Subject: Re: Forcing SYSTEMROOT (opinions needed) Message-ID: <20010507110737.E25805@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygapp References: <20010502222849 DOT A1238 AT redhat DOT com> <20010503111926 DOT Y24200 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20010503133346 DOT A5353 AT redhat DOT com> <147585893249 DOT 20010507121105 AT logos-m DOT ru> <20010507114813 DOT V24200 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <20010507114813.V24200@cygbert.vinschen.de>; from cygwin-apps@cygwin.com on Mon, May 07, 2001 at 11:48:13AM +0200 On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 11:48:13AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 12:11:05PM +0400, egor duda wrote: >> Thursday, 03 May, 2001 Christopher Faylor cgf AT redhat DOT com wrote: >> CF> On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 11:19:26AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >>What about adding a CYGWIN env setting "[no]pamper" with default >> >>setting "pamper"? We could add a function to Cygwin which is only >[...] >> CF> I'm not sure if you're 100% serious but this but I think that the number > >I am. I thought about a way to support more than just one >of these problems which no programmer thinks of by default >because they are just wierd Windowisms. Just a thought. > >> CF> of CYGWIN environment variables is already uncomfortably high. > >Ok, you are right that the number of settings is high but it's >clear that the need for _some_ sort of settings to influence the >behaviour of Cygwin is needed, though. And the increasing complexity >of Cygwin will not lower the need for such settings. > >Excuse me but in my opinion it's not reasonable to avoid a possible >(and perhaps needful) setting just because the already existing >settings are too numerous from a rather subjective point of view. No, but I am going to be more and more resistant to the idea of "just" adding an option to CYGWIN. Especially when, IMO, it makes no sense in this case. >Nevertheless I agree that the setting in an environment variable >doesn't fit our needs in the future. Shouldn't we discuss creating >a settings file which may override or supplement the CYGWIN environment >variable settings? > >We could add a CYGWIN setting ;-) like "settings_file:" >and the file could contain setting=value pairs one per line: > > binmode=yes > check_case=relaxed > error_init=C:\Cygwin\bin\gdb.exe > ntsec=yes > smbntsec=no > tty=yes I don't see that that helps anything. >> CF> This doesn't strike me as a CYGWIN setting. It's something that a >> CF> programmer wants to be able to set in his own code. If I'm calling >> CF> execl and only want four things in my environment, I should be able >> CF> to do that without being overridden by a user's environment variable >> CF> setting. > >Shouldn't we add a generalized interface to be able to set or >unset "settings" in an application? Possibly, but this isn't germaine to this situation. Again, if a programmer wants pinpoint control of the environment, they does not want a user to be able to supersede his wishes. Or, worse, they don't want to have to tell every person who runs the program: "Before you run my super new program bushwah2001, please set the CYGWIN environment variable to CYGWIN=dont_put_system_variables_in_the_environment" cgf