From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 36751 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2018 21:27:31 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 36607 invoked by uid 89); 25 Jul 2018 21:27:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Brian, brian, funny, manufacturing X-HELO: smtp-out-so.shaw.ca Received: from smtp-out-so.shaw.ca (HELO smtp-out-so.shaw.ca) (64.59.136.137) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:27:29 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([24.64.240.204]) by shaw.ca with ESMTP id iRJefpKt65HxqiRJffDVXL; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 15:27:27 -0600 Reply-To: Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca Subject: Re: NEW DEFECT: Basic cygwin Update Fails to Complete To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <6e331c0a-5a5a-1126-1a47-9b662805b939@t-online.de> <73752d84-abfe-1786-b9ad-d06e313cd133@t-online.de> From: Brian Inglis Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: <7d55c49f-49b6-9572-5489-d8c76eed7f4d@SystematicSw.ab.ca> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 14:54:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <73752d84-abfe-1786-b9ad-d06e313cd133@t-online.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-07/txt/msg00248.txt.bz2 On 2018-07-25 13:13, Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote: > Am 25.07.2018 um 20:50 schrieb Brian Inglis: >> If you use a Cygwin shell you can see /usr/{bin,lib}/, etc.; if you use a >> Windows shell you can not. > That's got nothing to do with the shell. It only depends on whether the > program that does the "seeing" is a cygwin-based one or not. From a plain > CMD.exe: That was just an example to illustrate why the OP's view may differ from yours without being incorrect, just not totally accurate as described without assumptions defined. As long as an OP can describe the gist of an issue, please give yourself and OPs a break about terminology they may have little interest in, other than to get a job done, whether for professional or personal reasons. The previous (elided) sentence showed awareness that the implementation is as "mount points under Cygwin processes." [It's funny for me to see such ardently binary attitudes towards various layers of digital models of implementations, which are based on the probabilities of manufacturing, electron mobility, weak magnetic signal detection, and software which doesn't suck! Should be a Cygwin/FOSS motto. ;^> ] -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada -- 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