This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
----Original Message---- >From: Dan Kegel >Sent: 26 August 2005 17:33 > Dave Korn wrote: >>> Ah. Deleting the files would work, too :-) >> >> "To a bofh with an rm-rf, every problem looks like a superfluous file" >> :) > > That's me! :-) I gotta admit, when I saw that episode of BOFH > the first time back in the early 90's, I ROTFL. Wow, I didn't know that was a real episode, I thought I just made it up. Guess it's a fairly easy idiom to impersonate.... :) >> we're worried about, but I still reckon that a patch to provide >> posix-flag mount points might be a useful kind of 'managed mount lite' >> feature. > > Oh. You're proposing a patch to cygwin to add > a new mount option? Sounds like a cool idea. > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/1997-05/msg00404.html > http://www.mail-archive.com/cygwin@cygwin.com/msg19268.html Yeh, I came across those threads. That one from '97 and one more recent one are about all I could find on the subject. > Corinna objects to it, though; she said on 22 Jul 2004 22:46:44 in > a message in thread "Re: Slight problem with case sensitivity on managed > mounts with C VS-1.1" archived at > http://www.newsarch.com/archive/mailinglist/cygwin/msg09026.html : I can't get that address to resolve! >The > problem in using FILE_FLAG_POSIX_SEMANTICS is this: Any other > >application which doesn't use that flag might get seriously confused > >by having two files which only differ in case. > > But maybe she'd be ok with it as an extra mount flag. I hope so; that way it's strictly isolated from anyone who doesn't want it in use. Making it a property of a mountpoint (rather than e.g. a CYGWIN environment variable option) should make it keep itself to self-contained dir subtrees, rather than allowing chaotically-named files to scatter across the whole fs. > But before you do: what *is* the overhead of managed mode mounts? No idea, but I'm sufficiently off-put by those mangled names that I don't like it! cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... ------ Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/ Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |