On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 10:30:20AM -0400, Robert Pendell wrote: >Adye, TJ (Tim) wrote: >>Brian Dessent wrote on 09 April 2007 22:05: >>>If you really want a compromise solution, you could modify run to not >>>depend on cygwin1.dll at link-time but instead LoadLibrary() it at >>>runtime, and if that fails fall back to whatever the native version >>>would have done. Thus you get a single executable that understands >>>posix paths if the DLL is in the PATH and still allows to you "run >>>c:\cygwin\bin\bash.exe" (or whatever it is that you're currently doing) >>>if the DLL is not in the PATH. Though that itself may cause >>>confusion... >> >>That's a nice idea, but I suspect it would indeed cause more confusion >>than any gain - especially when we're only talking about a 50k >>executable. Imagine the program silently behaving differently if you >>change the PATH. A nice "cygwin1.dll was not found" error message is >>usually preferable :-) >> >>I hope that a separately-named (small) executable, perhaps installed >>elsewhere, will be acceptable. > >I actually agree with cgf on this one but just an idea here. If that >kind of function was implemented then a warning could be placed to say >something to the effect of... > >WARNING: cygwin1.dll was not found in the path. Using native windows >paths instead.
This is one of those cases where whether there is community agreement or disagreement doesn't really matter. We don't need do discuss alternate solutions for non-issues. This isn't going to happen for any number of reasons so can we please move on now? cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
