On Apr 15 10:55, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Apr 14 20:02, Brian Dessent wrote:
> > Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, I know. I just don't think it clarifies anything to put a "Red
> > > Hat" in the registry.
> >
> > I was thinking "Cygwin" would be better as well, but since it is
> > supposed to be a two-level heirarchy how about
> > "HK{LM,CU}\Software\Cygwin Project\Cygwin". It has always seemed to me
> > that we actively try to de-emphasize any association that Red Hat has in
> > the actual day-to-day operation of the project, other than owning the
> > copyrights and having their own commercial fork. Likewise with the
>
> Well, not exactly. I have done a lot of my 1.7 development lately on
> blessed Red Hat time. The IPv6 changes and the long path name support
> wouldn't be as progressed as they are if I hadn't got enough paid time
> to do them. I don't think that deserves to be ignored.
Having said that, should we really rename the registry keys, what do we
do with the "Program Options" and the two "heap_foo" values? Should
they be moved to the new registry key? If yes, should the postinstall
script I created a couple of days ago also move them?
Btw., I think the postinstall script as part of the Cygwin package was a
bad idea. I will create another package called "base-cygwin" which will
contain this script as well as a few scripts in /bin which allow users
to resurrect their HKCU keys and values.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
