Bug in cygwin/cygwin-xfree pseudo topic split ;-)

[Linda Walsh]

Larry Hall (Cygwin X) wrote:
>>
>> Larry --
>>     The reason I changed forums was that the TOPIC/SUBJECT changed.
> 
> This is perfectly reasonable, except you kept both threads running.
----
	I did not.  On the note with the changed topic/subject the one
meant for general-cygwin list.  The header only has "cygwin":


-------- Original Message --------
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:34:21 -0800
From: Linda Walsh <cygwin@tlinx.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: How does one find "cygdrive path" in a Win ".bat" file  (was Re:  Bug 
in "startXwin.bat")
References: <4990B031.4050807@tlinx.org> <4990B128.7030004@cygwin.com>
In-Reply-To: <4990B128.7030004@cygwin.com>
--------- Chop --------------------

	The new subject ONLY went to the general list.

	Ahhh....I see...sorry
	I first responded to the cygwin-Xfree list about the
"general topic" of mount and determining the cygwin prefix.

	I realized, after posting, that it was actually no longer an
XFree only list, but had actually transitioned to a more general list.

	They are two separate notes -- not copies of the same.
	The note to the xfree list:
--------
>> No, you don't need to look in the registry.  There's nothing there that
>> 'mount' won't tell you.  Forget about the registry.  You'll be better
>> off, especially when Cygwin 1.7 is released.
> -----
>     Um...you sure about that?
> 
>     how do you run 'mount' if you don't know what the cygdrive prefix is?
--------
	Was a direct response to what you said with no context.
	The one posted to the general list was revised to include a bit
more information in the question so as to provide context:
--------
>> No, you don't need to look in the registry.  There's nothing there that
>> 'mount' won't tell you.  Forget about the registry.  You'll be better
>> off, especially when Cygwin 1.7 is released.
> ---
>     I'm curious -- how does mount find or 'know' the cygdrive path
> if it doesn't come from the registry.
> 
>     For that matter, how would a windows .bat file find the
> 'mount.exe' binary if the .bat file doesn't know 'cygdrive path'?
--------

	If I sent the 1st one to the cygwin-general list, it might
have caused confusion -- like someone might question was starting off in
the middle of a conversation.  Thus I rewrote the question as
1) a general question about how mount finds the cygdrive path
	and 2)
how an independent windows ".bat" script could find out the "cygwin prefix"
so it could call a utility such as "mount" (mount -p, specifically) in order
to be able to know the "cygwin prefix"...;-)  Sure seems circular to me.

lin>     how do you run 'mount' if you don't know what the cygdrive prefix is?
> Actually, that's not the question you asked, though I'll concede that
> this is what you meant to ask.  And I answered that on the main list.
---
	But, but but -- that is what I asked in the **revised** note
that had a new subject on the main list.  I said:
--------
>     I'm curious -- how does mount find or 'know' the cygdrive path
> if it doesn't come from the registry.
> 
>     For that matter, how would a windows .bat file find the
> 'mount.exe' binary if the .bat file doesn't know 'cygdrive path'?
--------
	I asked 2 questions -- specifically about "mount's" method
finding the cygdrive path, and 2) the general case -- how to find the
cygdrive path from outside of cygwin in a windows .bat file.


> For completeness, I'll paraphrase it here - there's no good way.
> 
>>     Just because you can't answer the question without circular
>> logic is no reason to get upset.
> 
> While other statements of yours have been understandable, even if they
> were in error, this one makes no sense so I won't respond to it.
----
	Well...it sorta makes sense -- you had no good answer, and you
seemed to be beating about the bush (or beating on the linda and/or her
posting style).  I guess, _I felt_, that if you were beating about
the Linda, then you must have some level of "upset".  Sorry if that
wasn't the case.  Perhaps it was a bit of projection?