From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stipe Tolj To: "Smith, Martin" Cc: Cygwin Subject: Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 19:45:00 -0000 Message-ID: <36E5C6FD.4D5@uni-duesseldorf.de> References: <286215C2CA1AD211A13500A024535B5887C8DA@eukscpo3.Dundee.NCR.COM> X-SW-Source: 1999-03n/msg00310.html Message-ID: <19990331194500.jIHsHmrcXrCvW_iNfRsZVIYmW2PF2en7NO3SINUjLZ8@z> Smith, Martin wrote: > * What about text/binary mounts - I get the feeling binary mounts are > preferred for most applications but, by default, the Cygnus tools install > with text mounts. Is it wise to change this to binary for a 'development' > install or not? I'm not quite sure about that. Personaly I prefer text mounts for development reasons, but I would like to hear some statements from the core developers towards this item. > * 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 any > "best" environment? I suppose the env vars will be set in a global .bashrc or .profile file started with bash. > * 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? Of course it would be usefull, but we will stick to tarball mechanisms here for the beginning, I suppose. > * 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. Hopefully yes, at least for those available and integratable for the whole environment. > * Would/could it set up /bin, /etc mounts as well as the default ones > provided by Cygwin? I suppose yes. > * 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 feasible > this one is... inetutils will be part of the software package, but I'm not aware if it should initialize and run automaticly after installation. > * Of course, using InstallShield, you could offer some of these as > options under "Custom" setup. yep. > 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 :-) > If you need a Beta tester for any of this, let me know ;-) noted this. Regards, Stipe -- Stipe Tolj Cygwin Porting Project Department of Economical Computer Science University of Cologne, Germany http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~tolj -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com