From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 98873 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2016 11:52:32 -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 98856 invoked by uid 89); 27 Jan 2016 11:52:31 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*MI:sk:87k2n29, H*MI:sk:CALiPeu, H*MI:sk:w@mail., H*f:NknUV X-HELO: plane.gmane.org Received: from plane.gmane.org (HELO plane.gmane.org) (80.91.229.3) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 11:52:30 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aOOeA-0000ab-Sf for cygwin@cygwin.com; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 12:52:27 +0100 Received: from 217.10.52.10 ([217.10.52.10]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 12:52:26 +0100 Received: from Stromeko by 217.10.52.10 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 12:52:26 +0100 To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: Achim Gratz Subject: Re: Base-files-mketc.sh error for non-existing C:\Windows\SysWOW64\drivers\etc Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:08:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <87fuxsjd5x.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87k2n290bh.fsf@Rainer.invalid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-01/txt/msg00387.txt.bz2 David Lee gmail.com> writes: > (1) A bug that the base-files script tries to link to files in > C:\Windows\SysWow64\Drivers\Etc directory (should have been > C:\Windows\System32\Drivers\Etc). That was a regression in cygpath, which has since been fixed. > (2) Your concern of whether there are 'other places to look > for those files'. > > It seems that you want to wait for confirmations/denials for (2) before > fixing (1). If there is none then (1) stays forever. I think it is better to > separate two issues. > > First, fix (1) as if (2) doesn't exist (if you have problem > with this then consider: the old code is coded as if (2) doesn't > exist, why should the patched code be different?) > > Then, wait for confirmations for (2). You can always patch again if a > confirmation emerges - it is never too late. If no answer comes up, > at least the bug doesn't stay forever. There is no need to do anything in base-files for (1) since cygpath has been fixed already and with no information to the contrary, no concern about (2). Regards, Achim. -- 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