Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 13:33:46 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Forcing SYSTEMROOT (opinions needed)
Message-ID: <20010503133346.A5353@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <E94FF01DFF6CD31186F4080009DC361501F8C39D AT nttwr2 DOT tower DOT bldgs DOT butlermfg DOT org> <20010502222849 DOT A1238 AT redhat DOT com> <20010503111926 DOT Y24200 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To: <20010503111926.Y24200@cygbert.vinschen.de>; from cygwin-apps@cygwin.com on Thu, May 03, 2001 at 11:19:26AM +0200

On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 11:19:26AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 10:28:50PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 06:55:19PM -0500, Parker, Ron wrote:
>> >>So we have to trade the possibility of someone wanting complete control
>> >>of his environment versus the possibility of someone not specifying
>> >>SYSTEMROOT but needing it for the program that is about to be run.
>> >>
>> >>Should I flip a coin?
>> >
>> >Since the Winsock dll is dynamically loaded via LoadLibrary, would it
>> >be possible to fill out SYSTEMROOT just prior to the load?
>> 
>> Hmm.  If we could be guaranteed that the program being loaded was a
>> cygwin program we could.
>> 
>> Or, maybe we don't care...  This is a creative approach to this problem.
>> I like it.
>
>What about adding a CYGWIN env setting "[no]pamper" with default
>setting "pamper"? We could add a function to Cygwin which is only
>called when "pamper" is set. That function could be filled with
>functionality which we _think_ are comfortable for users which
>simply want to have a functioning Cygwin under all circumstances
>and don't give a damn for purism.
>
>The first entry into this function could be to add always
>"SYSTEMROOT" and "SYSTEMDRIVE" to the environment.
>
>I'm pretty sure we would get lots of further entries over the time.

I'm not sure if you're 100% serious but this but I think that the number
of CYGWIN environment variables is already uncomfortably high.

This doesn't strike me as a CYGWIN setting.  It's something that a
programmer wants to be able to set in his own code.  If I'm calling
execl and only want four things in my environment, I should be able
to do that without being overridden by a user's environment variable
setting.

That's why I suggested some kind of API to control this behavior that
could be used by a savvy (?) programmer.

cgf