On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 06:15:19PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 05:57:46PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >> >On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> >>On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 04:56:11PM +0000, Luciano wrote: >> >>>Registry keys! Of course. Windows programmers can't live without good >> >>>old hard-to-backup-and-restore Registry keys. >>:-( >> >> >> >>Um, it's the mount table. Use mount -m to backup your mounts. That is >> >>why it was designed. >> > >> >Sorry, but not quite. There are some settings there besides mounts, >> >notably "heap_chunk_in_mb" and "Program Options". Until there's a >> >command-line tool to access those (well, regtool, of course, but that's >> >more of a hack), backing up the registry is the only choice. >> >> I'm not sure why regtool would be considered a hack in this context but >> I would submit that anyone who is initially perplexed by the fact that >> cygwin uses the registry is undoubtedly not using heap_chunk_in_mb or >> "Program Options". > >You're right, regtool is no more of a hack than backing up raw registry >(less, in fact, since it could be used in scripts). I also agree that >most people only use mounts, and those that use some other settings should >know what they're doing. However, people do forget at times, and it's >good to have a list of stuff that needs to be backed up in the archives.
Agreed. I knew where you were coming from. I just wanted to point out (although I didn't do it clearly) that, for the majority, "mount -m" should be adequate. However, as Igor points out, for completeness, you do have to be aware of the other two things that he mentioned. 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/
