This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project. See the Cygwin home page for more information.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]

RE: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

---"Smith, Martin" <martin@exchange.Scotland.NCR.COM> wrote:
> *	What about text/binary mounts - I get the feeling binary mounts are
> preferred for most applications but, by default, the Cygnus tools
> with text mounts. Is it wise to change this to binary for a
> install or not?

NO! The preferred method is text mounts.  That is the reason for the
default.  If a program requires binary mounts then the program isn't
properly ported.  Switching to binary mounts causes other problems. 
In a program always _SPECIFY_ whether it is to be opened for text mode
processing or binary mode processing, don't rely on the default.  A
file should be opened for text mode processing if the file can
potentially be read or created by humans with a text mode editor, such
as NOTEPAD.  All other files should be opened for binary mode

> *	What about environment variables? At the moment these are in a batch
> file but I usually add them to my NT environment and call Bash
directly. Is
> this appropriate? What about other settings like term etc? Is there
> "best" environment?

There are reasons why the environment variables are set in the batch
file; that being, it works on both NT and 9x.  I prefer this method as
to something modifying my setup files/environment.  IMNSHO, the "best"
environment is the default one provided by the tool.  Alternates can
be explained and possibly somewhat automated after the installation.

> *	Once installed, how best to manage updates to included packages? Is
> there any advantage to using RPM or would it be best to stick with
> tarballs/diff/patch initially? I don't think many people are using
any form
> of package management on cygwin yet but perhaps this would be useful?

This has been discussed many times before.  I prefer the tarball
method while others prefer the automated installation.  If you want to
satisfy all peoples then you have to supply both methods.

> *	Would this include helper scripts like the modified "install" which
> many packages need to cope with .exe extensions? I'm sure there have
been a
> few more handy scripts/wrappers on this list as well.

Just search the archives.

> *	Would/could it set up /bin, /etc mounts as well as the default ones
> provided by Cygwin?

Again, this is a preference thing.  Some prefer to use symbolic links,
some prefer to create a different directory structure altogether and
some prefer just using mount points.  Whatever you do as a default
will only satisfy about 1/3 (a guess) of the preferences.

> *	It would be handy if it could (eventually) offer to set inetutils up
> for you as well (as an NT service if you are on NT). Don't know how
> this one is...

No comment.

> *	Of course, using InstallShield, you could offer some of these as
> options under "Custom" setup.

Yuk.  Just give me a tarball please.

> Anyway, that's enough from me. I certainly support this suggestion
and think
> it would be a good way of allowing more people to get up & running
with the
> Cygwin tools without having to go through the regular FAQ session
first :-)

I like the idea, too.  However, it is a given that you'll never
satisfy everyone and if you're too lazy to read do the FAQ session
then you're going to be too lazy to read any other installation manual
as well.  I can just hear the questions now, "I just got this CD and
I'm trying to ...". ;^)

-                        \\||//
--                     --
-- --

PS: Newbie's, you should visit my page.
Get your free address at

Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to