Re: Backing up cygwin

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-idd at cygwin dot com>]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 06:15:19PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 05:57:46PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>> >On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >>On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 04:56:11PM +0000, Luciano wrote:
>> >>>Registry keys! Of course.  Windows programmers can't live without good
>> >>>old hard-to-backup-and-restore Registry keys.  >>:-(
>> >>
>> >>Um, it's the mount table.  Use mount -m to backup your mounts.  That is
>> >>why it was designed.
>> >
>> >Sorry, but not quite.  There are some settings there besides mounts,
>> >notably "heap_chunk_in_mb" and "Program Options".  Until there's a
>> >command-line tool to access those (well, regtool, of course, but that's
>> >more of a hack), backing up the registry is the only choice.
>>
>> I'm not sure why regtool would be considered a hack in this context but
>> I would submit that anyone who is initially perplexed by the fact that
>> cygwin uses the registry is undoubtedly not using heap_chunk_in_mb or
>> "Program Options".
>
>You're right, regtool is no more of a hack than backing up raw registry
>(less, in fact, since it could be used in scripts).  I also agree that
>most people only use mounts, and those that use some other settings should
>know what they're doing.  However, people do forget at times, and it's
>good to have a list of stuff that needs to be backed up in the archives.

Agreed.  I knew where you were coming from.  I just wanted to point out
(although I didn't do it clearly) that, for the majority, "mount -m" should
be adequate.

However, as Igor points out, for completeness, you do have to be aware of
the other two things that he mentioned.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/