Default mounts : one redundant?

Default mounts : one redundant?

[fergus]

Nothing altered from the default full installation:

~> mount -m
mount -f -s -b "c:/Cygwin/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts"
"/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts"
mount -f -s -b "c:/Cygwin/bin" "/usr/bin"
mount -f -s -b "c:/Cygwin/lib" "/usr/lib"
mount -f -s -b "c:/Cygwin" "/"
mount -s -b --change-cygdrive-prefix "/cygdrive"
~>

If c:/Cygwin is mounted under /, is it necessary to have
c:/Cygwin/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts mounted additionally under
/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts?

Fergus


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Default mounts : one redundant?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 04:39:12PM +0100, fergus@bonhard.uklinux.net wrote:
>Nothing altered from the default full installation:
>
>~> mount -m
>mount -f -s -b "c:/Cygwin/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts"
>"/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts"
>mount -f -s -b "c:/Cygwin/bin" "/usr/bin"
>mount -f -s -b "c:/Cygwin/lib" "/usr/lib"
>mount -f -s -b "c:/Cygwin" "/"
>mount -s -b --change-cygdrive-prefix "/cygdrive"
>~>
>
>If c:/Cygwin is mounted under /, is it necessary to have
>c:/Cygwin/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts mounted additionally under
>/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts?

Yes.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Default mounts : one redundant?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 09:15:31AM +0100, fergus@bonhard.uklinux.net wrote:
>>>  "You know better than to send this inquiry to the Cygwin list ..."
>
>>>  "This is off-topic, it belongs on cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com ..."
>
>On or about 19th April all the XFree86 stuff became available at the Cygwin
>mirrors and for the first time required no special download or installation
>procedures. A new user (or even several old users: 3 so far, by my
>reckoning) might be forgiven for deducing that associated queries could
>thereafter be reasonably directed to this list cygwin@cygwin.com. Hooray for
>ease.
>
>However: apparently not (even for questions like this one which is a
>perplexing one about architecture, not practice. Speaking just for myself,
>it really isn't always easy for those posing queries to determine where that
>query should reside). But anyway, please could we have a ruling: despite the
>consistency of its download and installation and the seamless manner in
>which it has become part of the standard provision, are queries about XFree
>stuff still to be directed elsewhere than cygwin@cygwin.com?

You've quoted Robert and Harold, apparently.  Robert is one of the core
cygwin developers.  He's also one of the people who "get it".  Harold is
the Mr.  Cygwin/XFree86.  You can assume that he knows what he's talking
about too.  You can pretty much take it for granted that if those two
guys says something is off-topic they've probably got it right.

So, to answer your question with a couple of other questions: Did you
see an announcement that the cygwin-xfree mailing list was going away?
Have you been seeing me consistently sending cygwin-xfree questions to
the cygwin-xfree mailing list?  Have you read the Mailing Lists link at
the cygwin web site?  Do you think it makes sense to increase the mailing
list traffic in the cygwin mailing list or to make people who are only
subscribed to cygwin-xfree now have to read cygwin, too?

I think the answer to these questions is obvious.  In case it isn't.  The
specific answer to your question is at http://cygwin.com/lists.html .

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Default mounts : one redundant?

[fergus]

>>  "You know better than to send this inquiry to the Cygwin list ..."

>>  "This is off-topic, it belongs on cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com ..."

On or about 19th April all the XFree86 stuff became available at the Cygwin
mirrors and for the first time required no special download or installation
procedures. A new user (or even several old users: 3 so far, by my
reckoning) might be forgiven for deducing that associated queries could
thereafter be reasonably directed to this list cygwin@cygwin.com. Hooray for
ease.

However: apparently not (even for questions like this one which is a
perplexing one about architecture, not practice. Speaking just for myself,
it really isn't always easy for those posing queries to determine where that
query should reside). But anyway, please could we have a ruling: despite the
consistency of its download and installation and the seamless manner in
which it has become part of the standard provision, are queries about XFree
stuff still to be directed elsewhere than cygwin@cygwin.com?

Fergus


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Default mounts : one redundant?

[Robert Collins]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Dautrevaux [mailto:Dautrevaux@microprocess.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 6:01 PM
> To: Robert Collins; Bernard Dautrevaux; cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: RE: Default mounts : one redundant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Collins [mailto:robert.collins@itdomain.com.au]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 9:50 AM
> > To: Bernard Dautrevaux; cygwin@cygwin.com
> > Subject: RE: Default mounts : one redundant?
> > 
> > 
> > This is off-topic, it belongs on cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com. And
> > the answer
> > is in that lists archives.
> 
> OK so if I understand correctly, the redundant mount here is 
> effectively useless, as the "/" mount is done in binary mode, 
> but is created by the cygwin-Xfree post-install script 
> because "/" may be mounted in text mode.
> 
> My question was just motivated by the fact the mount option 
> were identical; I ask it here because this is in fact a 
> general cygwin topic: if I *need* something to be accessed in 
> binary mode (and don't want to look at all refering programs) 
> I must mount the tree binary, even if the mount may be, in 
> some cases, redundant. 
> 
> And that is not, IMNSHO, off-topic.

Asking about a particular mount point made by the X install script is
off topic. 

Asking about strategies for dealing with mount points is on topic. It
was not obvious that you where doing the latter. 

And actually, mounting in binary does not ensure binary access. It just
means that non-text/bin aware programs will default to binary.

Rob

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Default mounts : one redundant?

[Bernard Dautrevaux]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Collins [mailto:robert.collins@itdomain.com.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 9:50 AM
> To: Bernard Dautrevaux; cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: RE: Default mounts : one redundant?
> 
> 
> This is off-topic, it belongs on cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com. And 
> the answer
> is in that lists archives.

OK so if I understand correctly, the redundant mount here is effectively
useless, as the "/" mount is done in binary mode, but is created by the
cygwin-Xfree post-install script because "/" may be mounted in text mode.

My question was just motivated by the fact the mount option were identical;
I ask it here because this is in fact a general cygwin topic: if I *need*
something to be accessed in binary mode (and don't want to look at all
refering programs) I must mount the tree binary, even if the mount may be,
in some cases, redundant. 

And that is not, IMNSHO, off-topic.

        Bernard

--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingenierie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel:	+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:	+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail:	dautrevaux@microprocess.com
-------------------------------------------- 
> 
> Rob
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bernard Dautrevaux [mailto:Dautrevaux@microprocess.com] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 5:43 PM
> > To: 'cygwin@cygwin.com'
> > Subject: RE: Default mounts : one redundant?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf@redhat.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 6:39 PM
> > > To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> > > Subject: Re: Default mounts : one redundant?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 04:39:12PM +0100,
> > > fergus@bonhard.uklinux.net wrote:
> > > >Nothing altered from the default full installation:
> > > >
> > > >~> mount -m
> > > >mount -f -s -b "c:/Cygwin/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts"
> > > >"/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts"
> > > >mount -f -s -b "c:/Cygwin/bin" "/usr/bin"
> > > >mount -f -s -b "c:/Cygwin/lib" "/usr/lib"
> > > >mount -f -s -b "c:/Cygwin" "/"
> > > >mount -s -b --change-cygdrive-prefix "/cygdrive"
> > > >~>
> > > >
> > > >If c:/Cygwin is mounted under /, is it necessary to have 
> > > >c:/Cygwin/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts mounted additionally under 
> > > >/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts?
> > > 
> > > Yes.
> > > 
> > 
> > And is it too much to ask why?
> > 
> >         Bernard
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------
> > Bernard Dautrevaux
> > Microprocess Ingenierie
> > 97 bis, rue de Colombes
> > 92400 COURBEVOIE
> > FRANCE
> > Tel:	+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
> > Fax:	+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
> > e-mail:	dautrevaux@microprocess.com
> > -------------------------------------------- 
> > 
> > --
> > Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> > Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> > Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> > FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
> > 
> > 
> 

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Default mounts : one redundant?

[Robert Collins]

This is off-topic, it belongs on cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com. And the answer
is in that lists archives.

Rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Dautrevaux [mailto:Dautrevaux@microprocess.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 5:43 PM
> To: 'cygwin@cygwin.com'
> Subject: RE: Default mounts : one redundant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf@redhat.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 6:39 PM
> > To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> > Subject: Re: Default mounts : one redundant?
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 04:39:12PM +0100,
> > fergus@bonhard.uklinux.net wrote:
> > >Nothing altered from the default full installation:
> > >
> > >~> mount -m
> > >mount -f -s -b "c:/Cygwin/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts"
> > >"/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts"
> > >mount -f -s -b "c:/Cygwin/bin" "/usr/bin"
> > >mount -f -s -b "c:/Cygwin/lib" "/usr/lib"
> > >mount -f -s -b "c:/Cygwin" "/"
> > >mount -s -b --change-cygdrive-prefix "/cygdrive"
> > >~>
> > >
> > >If c:/Cygwin is mounted under /, is it necessary to have 
> > >c:/Cygwin/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts mounted additionally under 
> > >/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts?
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> 
> And is it too much to ask why?
> 
>         Bernard
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> Bernard Dautrevaux
> Microprocess Ingenierie
> 97 bis, rue de Colombes
> 92400 COURBEVOIE
> FRANCE
> Tel:	+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
> Fax:	+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
> e-mail:	dautrevaux@microprocess.com
> -------------------------------------------- 
> 
> --
> Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
> 
> 

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Default mounts : one redundant?

[Bernard Dautrevaux]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf@redhat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 6:39 PM
> To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: Default mounts : one redundant?
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 04:39:12PM +0100, 
> fergus@bonhard.uklinux.net wrote:
> >Nothing altered from the default full installation:
> >
> >~> mount -m
> >mount -f -s -b "c:/Cygwin/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts"
> >"/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts"
> >mount -f -s -b "c:/Cygwin/bin" "/usr/bin"
> >mount -f -s -b "c:/Cygwin/lib" "/usr/lib"
> >mount -f -s -b "c:/Cygwin" "/"
> >mount -s -b --change-cygdrive-prefix "/cygdrive"
> >~>
> >
> >If c:/Cygwin is mounted under /, is it necessary to have
> >c:/Cygwin/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts mounted additionally under
> >/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts?
> 
> Yes.
> 

And is it too much to ask why?

        Bernard

--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingenierie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel:	+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:	+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail:	dautrevaux@microprocess.com
-------------------------------------------- 

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/