From: lhall AT rfk DOT com (Larry Hall RFK Partners, Inc) Subject: Re: mount table question 7 Jan 1999 08:33:21 -0800 Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19990107110802.0091a1c0.cygnus.cygwin32.developers@pop.ma.ultranet.com> References: <19990107102740 DOT A30572 AT cygnus DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Christopher Faylor , cygwin32-developers AT cygnus DOT com At 10:27 AM 1/7/99 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >Geoff is in the process of redoing the handling of Cygwin's mount table. >We're redesigning the layout of the registry but it occurred to me that >there was a long-running thread in gnu-win32 where people seemed to be >advocating for a simple /etc/fstab style file. > >Does anyone have any opinions on this? Should we drop the registry in >favor of a file? Obviously there would have to be at least one entry >denoting where the root was located but should that be it? > >-chris > If I remember the thread, I believe some consensus was reached that the registry is not required at all. An assumption could be made that the /etc/fstab file could be found in a default place (C: I guess) unless some environment variable pointed to a different location. There are obviously some fine details to make this all look consistent before and after the mounts exist but I think that's the flavor of the discussion. If I have this "synopsis" wrong or the general opinion has changed, feel free to correct me everyone! In my opinion, I'm not sure if an environment variable is a more or less visible way to find the file so I guess either is acceptable to me. Larry Hall lhall AT rfk DOT com RFK Partners, Inc. (781) 239-1053 8 Grove Street (781) 239-1655 Wellesley, MA, 02482-7797 http://www.rfk.com