Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:43:20 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Need name and functionality suggestions for a new utility
Message-ID: <20011024104320.C15898@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20011024005137 DOT A29851 AT redhat DOT com> <007f01c15c7b$84f86a50$65f504c0 AT sos> <3BD6AFAF DOT 8DC42F4A AT yahoo DOT com> <539145530 DOT 20011024170752 AT logos-m DOT ru> <3BD6C60D DOT B37C39EE AT yahoo DOT com> <4412910263 DOT 20011024181036 AT logos-m DOT ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4412910263.20011024181036@logos-m.ru>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i

On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 06:10:36PM +0400, egor duda wrote:
>but i want to use these environments (gasp) simultaneously! Ain't it
>a multitasking OS?

Right.  That was my reason for doing this.  I already employ bat files
to switch between cygwin releases.  They don't work in an environment
where two different cygwins are running at the same time.  I have a
completely different mount arrangement for the two releases.

>EB> If a differing mount table is desired, and I do see potential PRO's for
>EB> such a thing then a CYGWIN option "mountkey=foo" should be added and a
>EB> tool "cygremount" that copies the "mount v2" keys to a user specified
>EB> value be given.
>
>exactly.

Imagine if this is how we'd implemented chroot.  What kind of bug
reports do you think we'd be seeing?  Someone would invariably put a
CYGWIN= setting in their .profile and we'd be seeing bug reports like "I
ran bash and all of a sudden my chroot environment disappeared!"

It is possible to make this cygisolate scenario work in the cygwin
process runs non-cygwin process runs cygwin process scenario.  I don't
think it is really worth the effort at this point, though.  If it
becomes a big deal, then it can be done.  It probably should be done,
just for chroot, eventually.

cgf