Re: /dev/registry
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 06:43:15PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: === - Original Message - From: Randall R Schulz [EMAIL PROTECTED] The suggestion about ioctl() begs the question of where to get the file descriptor to which to apply the ioctl() call, and does not open the registry to scripting languages that have no direct access to the Cygwin or Windows APIs. It does not really simplify the task of adding the ability to Cygwin, but obscures the basic access behind the obscure and overloaded catch-all interface that is ioctl(). It is true that this would make inadvertent registry corruption less likely, but it only by virtue of making so much less accessible. Yah. I've been quite on this one. I'd like to point out that Cygwin has had a patch for /dev/registry some time ago. I just did a search and I can't see any formal submittal of a patch. Was this your patch? I seem to find some reference to this in a work in progress version of your UMSDOS stuff. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: /dev/registry
=== - Original Message - From: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yah. I've been quite on this one. I'd like to point out that Cygwin has had a patch for /dev/registry some time ago. I just did a search and I can't see any formal submittal of a patch. Was this your patch? I seem to find some reference to this in a work in progress version of your UMSDOS stuff. Not mine. And it was never submitted formally. Someone had it floating on a webpage someone where. Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: /dev/registry
=== - Original Message - From: Randall R Schulz [EMAIL PROTECTED] The suggestion about ioctl() begs the question of where to get the file descriptor to which to apply the ioctl() call, and does not open the registry to scripting languages that have no direct access to the Cygwin or Windows APIs. It does not really simplify the task of adding the ability to Cygwin, but obscures the basic access behind the obscure and overloaded catch-all interface that is ioctl(). It is true that this would make inadvertent registry corruption less likely, but it only by virtue of making so much less accessible. Yah. I've been quite on this one. I'd like to point out that Cygwin has had a patch for /dev/registry some time ago. I support a good implementation of this, and like the .dword etc suffix idea. I also think that a mount command should be *required* to active /dev/registry, and that a read-only and read-write mode should be provided... to allow for users with different needs, allowing read only requirements to result in lower risk. Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: /proc (was: Re: /dev/registry)
Is the source code for this functionality accessible for download
somewhere ?
Chris January wrote:
1. it's difficult to accidentally cat to a key considering the length of
the
names -
/proc/registry/HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software/Microsoft/Windows/CurrentVersion/S
hell\ Extensions/Approved/\{BDEADF00-C265-11d0-BCED-00A0C90AB50F\} is a
bit
hard to type in by accident...
At the moment, I have called the default key value, (default), the same as
regedit. Does anyone have any objections to this (and if so a better
suggestion)? The brackets can't be typed into bash without being quoted;
this might become a bit of a pain.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: /dev/registry
Why can't this /dev/registry stuff be just an ioctl()? Open the /dev/registry node for the appropriate access, then use some ioctl()'s to read and write it. Put the /dev/null entry points for the read and write handlers for /dev/registry and you won't have that accidental corruption from cat. By the way, if you're using Cygwin, why can't you just call RegQueryValueExW and friends yourself? You're a Win32 process anyway, and no UNIX has such a thing - don't care about portability. -- Barubary -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
/proc (was: Re: /dev/registry)
Why can't this /dev/registry stuff be just an ioctl()? Open the
/dev/registry node for the appropriate access, then use some ioctl()'s to
read and write it. Put the /dev/null entry points for the read and write
handlers for /dev/registry and you won't have that accidental corruption
from cat.
By the way, if you're using Cygwin, why can't you just call
RegQueryValueExW
and friends yourself? You're a Win32 process anyway, and no UNIX has such
a
thing - don't care about portability.
1. it's difficult to accidentally cat to a key considering the length of the
names -
/proc/registry/HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software/Microsoft/Windows/CurrentVersion/S
hell\ Extensions/Approved/\{BDEADF00-C265-11d0-BCED-00A0C90AB50F\} is a bit
hard to type in by accident...
2. it makes scripting easier
3. ** adding /proc/registry means adding /proc and once a /proc virtual fs
is established, other /proc entries can be added a lot more easily
4. it gives you an alternative to regedit and friends
I almost have a read-only version of this working. I don't see why their
should be objections to this since you can't screw your registry up in any
way. I'll think
about how to add write capabilities later.
I'll probably add some entries to /proc - ones commonly found on UNIX
platforms maybe. Anyone have any favourites they wish to see?
Regards
Chris
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: /proc (was: Re: /dev/registry)
Why can't this /dev/registry stuff be just an ioctl()? Open the
/dev/registry node for the appropriate access, then use some ioctl()'s to
read and write it. Put the /dev/null entry points for the read and write
handlers for /dev/registry and you won't have that accidental corruption
from cat.
By the way, if you're using Cygwin, why can't you just call
RegQueryValueExW
and friends yourself? You're a Win32 process anyway, and no UNIX has such
a
thing - don't care about portability.
1. it's difficult to accidentally cat to a key considering the length of the
names -
/proc/registry/HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software/Microsoft/Windows/CurrentVersion/S
hell\ Extensions/Approved/\{BDEADF00-C265-11d0-BCED-00A0C90AB50F\} is a bit
hard to type in by accident...
2. it makes scripting easier
3. ** adding /proc/registry means adding /proc and once a /proc virtual fs
is established, other /proc entries can be added a lot more easily
This seems good to me :-)
4. it gives you an alternative to regedit and friends
I almost have a read-only version of this working. I don't see why their
should be objections to this since you can't screw your registry up in any
way. I'll think about how to add write capabilities later.
I'll probably add some entries to /proc - ones commonly found on UNIX
platforms maybe. Anyone have any favourites they wish to see?
Regards
Chris
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: /dev/registry
Barubary, The motivation for a file-system reflection of the Windows registry is to open it up to programs not written in a Windows native language (C, C++, VB, etc.). Doing this would give all manner of scripts (shell, Perl, Python, TCL, etc.) access to the registry in one fell swoop. That is one of the beautiful things about the Unix approach of fitting so much of a system's facilities into the unified framework of the file system. As the discussion has shown, however, if the underlying facility is not a good match for Unix's file model, this approach falls down. The Windows registry appears to be at the boundary of this issue, given the typed nature of its entries. The suffix approach or, perhaps, a terminal directory holding entries like .dword or .sz would presumably suffice. The suggestion about ioctl() begs the question of where to get the file descriptor to which to apply the ioctl() call, and does not open the registry to scripting languages that have no direct access to the Cygwin or Windows APIs. It does not really simplify the task of adding the ability to Cygwin, but obscures the basic access behind the obscure and overloaded catch-all interface that is ioctl(). It is true that this would make inadvertent registry corruption less likely, but it only by virtue of making so much less accessible. Randall Schulz Mountain View, CA USA At 03:23 2002-02-06, Barubary wrote: Why can't this /dev/registry stuff be just an ioctl()? Open the /dev/registry node for the appropriate access, then use some ioctl()'s to read and write it. Put the /dev/null entry points for the read and write handlers for /dev/registry and you won't have that accidental corruption from cat. By the way, if you're using Cygwin, why can't you just call RegQueryValueExW and friends yourself? You're a Win32 process anyway, and no UNIX has such a thing - don't care about portability. -- Barubary -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: /proc (was: Re: /dev/registry)
Chris January wrote: I'll probably add some entries to /proc - ones commonly found on UNIX platforms maybe. Anyone have any favourites they wish to see? I don't know about favorite, but the only one that's even close to standardized across Unices is /proc/pid. And even that is nonstandard everywhere: it's a bunch of text files on Linux, and a bunch of binary files by different names under recent SysVR4. (Or SVR5, as Caldera nee SCO insists on calling it.) -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: /proc (was: Re: /dev/registry)
1. it's difficult to accidentally cat to a key considering the length of
the
names -
/proc/registry/HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software/Microsoft/Windows/CurrentVersion/S
hell\ Extensions/Approved/\{BDEADF00-C265-11d0-BCED-00A0C90AB50F\} is a
bit
hard to type in by accident...
At the moment, I have called the default key value, (default), the same as
regedit. Does anyone have any objections to this (and if so a better
suggestion)? The brackets can't be typed into bash without being quoted;
this might become a bit of a pain.
Regards
Chris
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: /proc (was: Re: /dev/registry)
Another suggestion (I won't presume to say better):
.reg files refer to this value as @. E.g.
REGEDIT4
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\AppEvents\Schemes]
@=.current
stephan();
-Original Message-
From: Chris January [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 4:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: /proc (was: Re: /dev/registry)
1. it's difficult to accidentally cat to a key considering the
length of
the
names -
/proc/registry/HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software/Microsoft/Windows/CurrentVersi
on/S
hell\ Extensions/Approved/\{BDEADF00-C265-11d0-BCED-00A0C90AB50F\}
is a
bit
hard to type in by accident...
At the moment, I have called the default key value, (default), the
same as regedit. Does anyone have any objections to this (and if so a
better suggestion)? The brackets can't be typed into bash without being
quoted; this might become a bit of a pain.
Regards
Chris
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: /proc (was: Re: /dev/registry)
Just another log on the fire, the Perl registry modules use for the
(default) value.
Even so, I'd lean toward @ since it's hard to name a file .
You may need to have an ioctl() to change the key separator. '\' would
probably be ok, but difficult. The problem with '/' might make it hard to
handle the cygwin mount tables.
--
Mac :})
** I normally forward private questions to the appropriate mail list. **
Ask Smarter: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.htm
Give a hobbit a fish and he eats fish for a day.
Give a hobbit a ring and he eats fish for an age.
- Original Message -
From: Stephan Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Chris January [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 17:00
Subject: RE: /proc (was: Re: /dev/registry)
Another suggestion (I won't presume to say better):
.reg files refer to this value as @. E.g.
REGEDIT4
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\AppEvents\Schemes]
@=.current
stephan();
-Original Message-
From: Chris January [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 4:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: /proc (was: Re: /dev/registry)
1. it's difficult to accidentally cat to a key considering the
length of
the
names -
/proc/registry/HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software/Microsoft/Windows/CurrentVersi
on/S
hell\ Extensions/Approved/\{BDEADF00-C265-11d0-BCED-00A0C90AB50F\}
is a
bit
hard to type in by accident...
At the moment, I have called the default key value, (default), the
same as regedit. Does anyone have any objections to this (and if so a
better suggestion)? The brackets can't be typed into bash without being
quoted; this might become a bit of a pain.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: /dev/registry
The trick at this point is finding someone interested enough to write it. Nobody seems to notice that the original message writer actually proposed himself to do the work... now let's only hope he really does it ;) Subject: /dev/registry Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 15:42:55 - From: Chris January [...]I'm willing to try coding this if people think it's a good idea.[...] -- Lapo 'Raist' Luchini [EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP X.509 keys available) http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796) -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: /dev/registry
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 6:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: /dev/registry On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 02:09:27PM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote: The trick at this point is finding someone interested enough to write it. Nobody seems to notice that the original message writer actually proposed himself to do the work... now let's only hope he really does it ;) Let's also hope that he looks over previous discussion of the topic and that he has scrutinized the Contributing link at http://cygwin.com/ . If anyone of you was by the army, how many shots you have needed to hit the middle of target ? Does anyone of you are real thinking, that this is the right way to motivate people working on an open source projects like cygwin ? Does this project does not depends on new idea ? Ralf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: /dev/registry
At 04:44 PM 2/5/2002, Ralf Habacker wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 6:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: /dev/registry On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 02:09:27PM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote: The trick at this point is finding someone interested enough to write it. Nobody seems to notice that the original message writer actually proposed himself to do the work... now let's only hope he really does it ;) Let's also hope that he looks over previous discussion of the topic and that he has scrutinized the Contributing link at http://cygwin.com/ . If anyone of you was by the army, how many shots you have needed to hit the middle of target ? Does anyone of you are real thinking, that this is the right way to motivate people working on an open source projects like cygwin ? Does this project does not depends on new idea ? Sure. It depends on new ideas. It depends more on people to actually implement them. Since this thread has already pointed out that discussion of topics is far more prevalent on this list than actual contributions, I think you should interpret any subtext of this email exchange as a healthy bit of skepticism that the result of this discussion will result in a real contribution. Now's the time for all those interested to prove the old skeptics wrong! ;-) In this case, it is clear that Chris January's stated intent is to implement this feature. It's worthwhile to reiterate that this topic was brought up in that context. Just to set the record straight, if you review this email thread, you'll notice it's been pointed out that this is not a new idea. It's come up and been discussed quite thoroughly before on this list, in case anyone is interested in reviewing that discussion. I, for one, am quite interested to see what Chris creates. I expect others on this list will be too. Go Chris! :-) Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: /dev/registry
- Original Message - From: Ralf Habacker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 13:44 Subject: RE: /dev/registry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 6:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: /dev/registry On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 02:09:27PM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote: The trick at this point is finding someone interested enough to write it. Nobody seems to notice that the original message writer actually proposed himself to do the work... now let's only hope he really does it ;) Let's also hope that he looks over previous discussion of the topic and that he has scrutinized the Contributing link at http://cygwin.com/ . If anyone of you was by the army, how many shots you have needed to hit the middle of target ? Does anyone of you are real thinking, that this is the right way to motivate people working on an open source projects like cygwin ? Does this project does not depends on new idea ? There are lots of ideas out there as this thread has shown. The shortage is people to put them into effect. Patches and packages are welcome. -- Mac :}) ** I normally forward private questions to the appropriate mail list. ** Ask Smarter: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.htm Give a hobbit a fish and he eats fish for a day. Give a hobbit a ring and he eats fish for an age. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: /dev/registry
From: Gerald Villemure [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: /dev/registry So this: [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run] WinVNC=data goes here would become: /proc/registry/HKLM/SOFTWARE/Microsoft/Windows/CurrentVersion/Run/WinVNC.sz Good or bad idea? One more things to be carefull of, is the use of roming profiles HKCU can change. Maybe I've missed something here, but are we talking about copying the registry to hard drive, or rather providing a 'pathed' means just to read the registry? I'm still a newbie in this area, but to me, it would seem that if it's not copied to the HD then we don't need an extention to indicate key type, but that those things that called it should know, and/or check, what type of key they were getting the information on. Just my two cents, Greg -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: /dev/registry
- Original Message - From: Greg Mosier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 14:41 Subject: Re: /dev/registry Maybe I've missed something here, but are we talking about copying the registry to hard drive, or rather providing a 'pathed' means just to read the registry? I'm still a newbie in this area, but to me, it would seem that if it's not copied to the HD then we don't need an extention to indicate key type, but that those things that called it should know, and/or check, what type of key they were getting the information on. It would require a new driver similar to the one (ones?) that manages filesystems, but I would expect it to walk through the registry instead of directories. I think adding the type information to the name is just asking for ambiguties, but it's really up to whoever implements it. Using the name to indicate type does minimize the deviation from the file I/O paradigm though. The trick at this point is finding someone interested enough to write it. -- Mac :}) ** I normally forward private questions to the appropriate mail list. ** Ask Smarter: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.htm Give a hobbit a fish and he eats fish for a day. Give a hobbit a ring and he eats fish for an age. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: /dev/registry
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chris January Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 9:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: /dev/registry How about adding a /dev/registry fhandler to Cygwin? Registry keys would be directories and values in the registry files. I'm willing to try coding this if people think it's a good idea. It allows shell scripts to easily access registry keys as well as programs. Well, it looks like I'll be the only one, but this sounds to me like an insanely *BAD* idea. It seems to me to be hard enough to keep the Windows registry in one piece even if you don't dink with it; I shudder to think what horrors await sombody with fat fingers and an itchy TAB finger (i.e. me): cat HundredsOfMBsOfCrap /dev/r[TAB-oops-I-meant...well-something-else-anyway] I'm trying to think where this would actually be useful, but I'm drawing a blank. It seems to me that the registry should have at least a slightly higher barrier to entry than the command line. -- Gary R. Van Sickle Brewer. Patriot. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: /dev/registry
How about adding a /dev/registry fhandler to Cygwin? Registry keys would be directories and values in the registry files. I'm willing to try coding this if people think it's a good idea. It allows shell scripts to easily access registry keys as well as programs. Well, it looks like I'll be the only one, but this sounds to me like an insanely *BAD* idea. It seems to me to be hard enough to keep the Windows registry in one piece even if you don't dink with it; I shudder to think what horrors await sombody with fat fingers and an itchy TAB finger (i.e. me): cat HundredsOfMBsOfCrap /dev/r[TAB-oops-I-meant...well-something-else-anyway] I'm trying to think where this would actually be useful, but I'm drawing a blank. It seems to me that the registry should have at least a slightly higher barrier to entry than the command line. umm /dev/registry I am assuming you would think would act like a file? - people were suggesing /proc/registry - and as far as I could tell it would act like a directory - so your 'cat junk' would just fail with invalid target... maybe you meant cat hundredsofmbofjunk /proc/registry/HKLM/User/Software/Windows/Current/blah/ding/shiznat.sz ? which i dont see you manageing no matter how hard you try ... Gareth -- Gary R. Van Sickle Brewer. Patriot. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
/dev/registry
How about adding a /dev/registry fhandler to Cygwin? Registry keys would be directories and values in the registry files. I'm willing to try coding this if people think it's a good idea. It allows shell scripts to easily access registry keys as well as programs. Regards Chris -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: /dev/registry
How about adding a /dev/registry fhandler to Cygwin? Registry keys would be directories and values in the registry files. I'm willing to try coding this if people think it's a good idea. It allows shell scripts to easily access registry keys as well as programs. Seems good to me, but it seems better as a /proc/registry/(key/)*value (the first support of cygwin /proc ? would be cool to also add the ordinary stuff, processor type, memory.. and so on) -- Lapo 'Raist' Luchini [EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP X.509 keys available) http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796) -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: /dev/registry
This sounds like a GREAT idea to me. How about adding a /dev/registry fhandler to Cygwin? Registry keys would be directories and values in the registry files. I'm willing to try coding this if people think it's a good idea. It allows shell scripts to easily access registry keys as well as programs. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: /dev/registry
Hi, Chris January [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrtote: How about adding a /dev/registry fhandler to Cygwin? Registry keys would be directories and values in the registry files. UWIN (a commercial alternative to cygwin) has something similar. See http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/uwin/ They use /reg, but I agree that /dev/registry or /proc/registry would be better. Regards, Jon Foster -- The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.jon-foster.co.uk/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: /dev/registry
/proc/registry/* is a GREAT idea! Sincerely, Daniel Adams - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dana.ucc.nau.edu/~dpa3 1 Peter 4:10 (NIV)- Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: /dev/registry
Daniel Adams wrote: /proc/registry/* is a GREAT idea! Okay folks, enough with the me toos. Suffice it to say that everybody thinks this is a wonderful idea. Not surprisingly, the suggestion of a /dev/registry or /proc/registry HAS been made before. And everybody thought it was a great idea then, too. There's only one problem: back then, after the initial round of self-congratulation and great idea -- me too-ism -- nobody did the work. I suspect the same thing will be true this time, as well. Somebody please astonish me and provide the code. --Chuck (*) P.S. back then somebody mentioned a few problems with file-system access to registry entries: how do you deal with the various types -- DWORD, BINARY, STRING, (and the other types that AREN'T accessible via regedit...) Just something to keep in mind, if somebody actually tries to write some code for this... -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: /dev/registry
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 02:15:50PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: Daniel Adams wrote: /proc/registry/* is a GREAT idea! Okay folks, enough with the me toos. Suffice it to say that everybody thinks this is a wonderful idea. Not surprisingly, the suggestion of a /dev/registry or /proc/registry HAS been made before. And everybody thought it was a great idea then, too. There's only one problem: back then, after the initial round of self-congratulation and great idea -- me too-ism -- nobody did the work. I suspect the same thing will be true this time, as well. Somebody please astonish me and provide the code. --Chuck (*) P.S. back then somebody mentioned a few problems with file-system access to registry entries: how do you deal with the various types -- DWORD, BINARY, STRING, (and the other types that AREN'T accessible via regedit...) Just something to keep in mind, if somebody actually tries to write some code for this... Thanks, Chuck. Actually someone (Egor?) did write code and, you're right, about the problems and the me toos. Just to be clear /dev/registry is wrong for the same reason as we used /cygdrive/a rather than /dev/a. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: /dev/registry
(*) P.S. back then somebody mentioned a few problems with file-system access to registry entries: how do you deal with the various types -- DWORD, BINARY, STRING, (and the other types that AREN'T accessible via regedit...) Just something to keep in mind, if somebody actually tries to write some code for this... File permissions could handle this? Maybe something similar to cygwin's symlinks? *shrug* -rgm -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: /dev/registry
/proc/registry/* is a GREAT idea! (*) P.S. back then somebody mentioned a few problems with file-system access to registry entries: how do you deal with the various types -- DWORD, BINARY, STRING, (and the other types that AREN'T accessible via regedit...) Why not use a file name extention (vary microsoft like thing to do) First lets use standard Root key Name Abbreviations HKEY_CURRENT_USERHKCU HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINEHKLM HKEY_CLASSES_ROOTHKCR HKEY_USERS HKEY_USERS HKEY_CURRENT_CONFIG HKEY_CURRENT_CONFIG As for value data types, we could use: REG_SZ .sz REG_DWORD .dword REG_BINARY .binary REG_EXPAND_SZ .expand REG_MULTI_SZ .mutli So this: [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run] WinVNC=data goes here would become: /proc/registry/HKLM/SOFTWARE/Microsoft/Windows/CurrentVersion/Run/WinVNC.sz Good or bad idea? One more things to be carefull of, is the use of roming profiles HKCU can change. Gerald -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
