From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4063 invoked by alias); 24 May 2011 09:54:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 4055 invoked by uid 22791); 24 May 2011 09:54:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from BACHE.ECE.CMU.EDU (HELO bache.ece.cmu.edu) (128.2.129.23) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 May 2011 09:53:58 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.101] (206-248-130-97.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.130.97]) by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC79F122 for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 05:53:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4DDB8036.3090405@ece.cmu.edu> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 09:54:00 -0000 From: Ryan Johnson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: CYGWIN=tty round 2 References: <20110522211906.GA13428@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <1306119201.4572.4.camel@YAAKOV04> <4DDAEBEC.6030704@ece.cmu.edu> <20110524062212.GA13144@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> In-Reply-To: <20110524062212.GA13144@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg00344.txt.bz2 On 24/05/2011 2:22 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 07:21:16PM -0400, Ryan Johnson wrote: >> On 22/05/2011 10:53 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: >>> On Sun, 2011-05-22 at 17:19 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>>> I don't think we saw anyone step forward with a valid reason why they >>>> needed to use CYGWIN=tty over something like "mintty". >>>> >>>> I've summarized the thread where Corinna asked why people used >>>> CYGWIN=tty over CYGWIN=notty below. >>>> >>>> I don't see any showstoppers here so unless people can provide specific >>>> examples of how this change would cause hardwhip, we'll be removing >>>> CYGWIN=tty in a snapshot near you soon. >>> I could add XWin: >>> >>> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9763 >>> >>> And once again, using mintty is a solution. >>> >>> Since mintty is the solution to so many of these scenarios, shouldn't >>> we make it the default terminal (IOW add mintty to Base and replace the >>> Cygwin.bat shortcut with mintty's)? The status quo just encourages >>> people to use a deficient terminal without any idea that a better one >>> exists. >> I would be happy to see mintty as the default. Since discovering it I >> essentially stopped using X because xterm was my main reason for firing >> it up. >> >> However... isn't there some dire warning that gdb only will ever work >> properly (some of the time) from within a vanilla console window? >> Something to do with ^C handling? >> >> Mind you, I'd love that restriction to be lifted, but it sounded pretty >> hard and fast the last few times the topic came up. On the other hand, >> most casual cygwin users won't be needing gdb often, if ever, so that >> might not be enough reason to keep the console over mintty. > Can we PLEASE stay on topic? > > This has nothing to do with CYGWIN=tty. If gdb didn't work in mintty it > wouldn't work with CYGWIN=tty either. Sorry... I got distracted by the mintty-as-default tangent. Back on topic, I have never used CYGWIN=tty (I kept forgetting to set it even when directed to do so by various inaccurate how-tos out ther) and would not miss it. Ryan -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple