Michael Schaap wrote:
>
> Okay, here we go, according to your (excellent) instructions.
>
> I took the liberty to create the patch (and tar.bz2) *before* running
> ./bootstrap - this keeps the patch a lot smaller and simpler. (I _did_
> test the bootstrap and build process, of course. :-) )
At 08:33 13-3-2002, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Michael --
> Did you want to add this to cygutils? I'm getting ready to release
> 1.0.0 and I'd like to put start(cygstart, whatev) in it for v1.0 rather
> than later -- if its going in at all. If you'd rather keep it separate,
> that's fine too.
At 08:33 13-3-2002, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Michael --
> Did you want to add this to cygutils?
Sure do!
I was kinda waiting for "consensus" on the start vs. cygstart issue, but
all we got were some opinions either way. I guess I'll play it safe and
call it cygstart.
> I'm getting ready to
Michael --
Did you want to add this to cygutils? I'm getting ready to release
1.0.0 and I'd like to put start(cygstart, whatev) in it for v1.0 rather
than later -- if its going in at all. If you'd rather keep it separate,
that's fine too.
--Chuck
Michael Schaap wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've w
I prefer start over cygstart. Here's my $0.02, FWIW:
o Newbies are more likely to find "start" than "cygstart". And
they'll be impressed that "start appname" JustWorks(tm).
o Oldies (like me, who can't always remember things very well)
wouldn't have to learn a new command name.
o "most
Michael Schaap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I've written a little "start" utility, which is similar to "cmd /c
> start", only better.
Just tried it under Win98SE -- looks like it works great. I'm all
for adding this to cygutils (but I definitely think "cygstart" is
a smarter name choice
> I see that you are using Windos 9x/ME. Have you tried my "start", and if
> so, is it working? I believe it is _supposed_ to work under Win9x, but
> we'd better make sure before this is included in cygutils...
Will do the next time I have time to kill (i.e., not too soon).
Gruesse, Carsten
I think there was a start.exe in Win9x/Me (i.e. it was not a command.com
builtin), but my Win9x days are mercifully over, so I can't say for sure.
Nevertheless, a cygutils start could be a useful scripting tool.
> Ah -- and that explains why one previously had to do "cmd /c start foo"
> from a b
At 12:58 3-3-2002, David Starks-Browning wrote:
>On Sunday 3 Mar 02, Robert Collins writes:
> > I think cygstart or something like that will eliminate the potiential
> > for touble.
>
>Indeed, that would solve it!
It would.
I have mixed feelings about this, though.
On the one hand, calling it "
At 09:45 3-3-2002, Dr. Carsten Bormann wrote:
>So just call it differently.
>
>It would be nice if this could replace my little shell script "st":
>
>#!/bin/bash
>for i
>do
> start "$(cygpath -w "$i")"
>done
>
>(start being /c/Windows/command/start.exe)
It would. (Only, your "st" script
At 06:16 3-3-2002, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Michael Schaap wrote:
>
>Hmmm...how does this differ from the "run" utility here:
>
>http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/unversioned/run/
>
>It may be entirely different; I'm not sure. Certainly they were written
>for different purposes.
On Sunday 3 Mar 02, Robert Collins writes:
> I think cygstart or something like that will eliminate the potiential
> for touble.
Indeed, that would solve it!
David
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentatio
I think cygstart or something like that will eliminate the potiential
for touble.
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: David Starks-Browning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 8:32 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: "start" for Cygwin
On Saturday 2 Mar 02, Stephan Mueller writes:
> Note though, that on Win9x, start is a standalone file (I forget if it's
> start.exe or start.com) on the path.
> Cygwin still supports 9x, so fears about consternation in some quarters
> still apply (it's just that they're different quarters than Ch
So just call it differently.
It would be nice if this could replace my little shell script "st":
#!/bin/bash
for i
do
start "$(cygpath -w "$i")"
done
(start being /c/Windows/command/start.exe)
Gruesse, Carsten
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug rep
nd :-)
stephan();
-Original Message-
From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 10:16 PM
To: Robert Collins
Cc: Michael Schaap; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: "start" for Cygwin
Ah -- and that explains why one previously had to do "cmd /c start
Ah -- and that explains why one previously had to do "cmd /c start foo"
from a bash shell. Okay, according to my tests (I put a 'start' shell
script in my /usr/bin directory.) From bash, 'start foo' causes my
script to run. From cmd, 'start foo' causes the builtin cmd command to
run (even t
Start is a cmd builtin - there is no start.exe
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Anyway, I personally have no objection to including start in cygutils --
but the sudden appearance of a 'start.exe' command in /usr/bin (which
could hide WINNT/s
Michael Schaap wrote:
> (Chuck, if you think this would be a good addition for cygutils, feel
> free to include it! After all, I did "borrow" some of the code
> framework from it. :-) )
Hmmm...how does this differ from the "run" utility here:
http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygu
19 matches
Mail list logo
