On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 10:54:06AM -0400, Larry Hall wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>On 23 Jul, I wrote: >> >>>I was going to qualify this with `when ntsec is defined in CYGWIN' >> >> >>It's not easy to find out if ntsec is turned on, is it? When I wrote >>the above, I was thinking "ntsec turned on" means $CYGWIN includes the >>word "ntsec". >> >>But I think I've just realised that isn't true, is it? >> >>If it's pre Cygwin 1.3.something-like-18, then it's on if and only if >>ntsec is in $CYGWIN, but if it's after, it's on unless $CYGWIN includes >>nontsec. So the actual test you'd have to make would be something like >>what I've written here (read "~" as "includes"): >> >> version < 1.3.18 then $CYGWIN ~ \<ntsec else !( $CYGWIN ~ nontsec ) >> > >The version where ntsec was turned on by default was 1.3.13-1. See the >announcement here: > ><http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-announce/2002-10/msg00004.html>
Wow. You mean someone actually announced it? And it was nine+ months ago. That doesn't sound very mean at all. I'll have to work on that. -- Please use the resources at cygwin.com rather than sending personal email. Special for spam email harvesters: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and be permanently blocked from mailing lists at sources.redhat.com -- 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/
