Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com From: Chris Faylor Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 16:33:07 -0500 To: "Parker, Ron" Cc: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Subject: Re: FS layout issues for v1.1 (eg., /bin and /usr/bin) Message-ID: <20000301163307.B17394@cygnus.com> Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com References: <200003012130 DOT NAA05126 AT cygnus DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.4i In-Reply-To: <200003012130.NAA05126@cygnus.com>; from rdparker@butlermfg.org on Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 03:28:07PM -0600 On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 03:28:07PM -0600, Parker, Ron wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Glenn Spell [mailto:glenn AT gs DOT fay DOT nc DOT us] >> Seems to me that the bootstrapping and build process could remain >> the same except for one final step of moving or copying a few agreed >> upon executables from /usr/bin to /bin. I'm thinking that if we copy >> instead of move then then the mount/symlinks issues will be simpler. > > > >With the usual caveat of complicating updating to new versions of these >files. (Not saying one is worse than the other, merely a trade off.) As I've stated before, my preference would be for something that would be very close to what you'd get if you did a 'configure; make; make install' in the top level of a cygwin source installation. Moving files around or forcing files into different directories does not seem like the right approach to me. cgf