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. -- 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
