Re: Why umount -A is a really bad idea

On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 01:09:11PM +0100, Colin JN Breame wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: > >>I have had a modification to mount waiting in the wings for a while now >>which foregos the use of the registry entirely but I can't convince >>myself that, if I implement it, the mailing list won't be f

Re: Why umount -A is a really bad idea

Christopher Faylor wrote: I have had a modification to mount waiting in the wings for a while now which foregos the use of the registry entirely but I can't convince myself that, if I implement it, the mailing list won't be filled with the moans of people who now have to do a "mount -a -t ntfs" (or

Re: Why umount -A is a really bad idea

Igor Pechtchanski schrieb: Or, perhaps, a better solution would be to implement a mount table a la Unix, as CGF has been advocating for years. Any takers? you mean /etc/mtab <=> /proc/mounts and /etc/fstab. No, this looks like real work. And then we would really have to create the other device dri

Re: Why umount -A is a really bad idea

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:29:56AM -0400, Doctor Bill wrote: >It seems like there is endless confusions with cygwin mount's because >the name of the command is the same as the Unix mount command, and >some of the command line options are similar. Has anyone given >serious consideration to renaming

Re: Why umount -A is a really bad idea

Or, perhaps, a better solution would be to implement a mount table a la Unix, as CGF has been advocating for years. Any takers? Igor P.S. . Thanks. On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Doctor Bill wrote: > It seems like there is endless confusions with cygwin

Re: Why umount -A is a really bad idea

Or even at a break with tradition; cygmappath and cygunmappath. Doctor Bill wrote: It seems like there is endless confusions with cygwin mount's because the name of the command is the same as the Unix mount command, and some of the command line options are similar. Has anyone given serious conside

Re: Why umount -A is a really bad idea

It seems like there is endless confusions with cygwin mount's because the name of the command is the same as the Unix mount command, and some of the command line options are similar. Has anyone given serious consideration to renaming the command to something like, cygmount?

Re: Why umount -A is a really bad idea

Igor Pechtchanski schrieb: On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Mike wrote: On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Colin JN Breame wrote: I tried this once, just to see what would happen. I then spent the next hour restoring the mount points. I've learnt a valuable lesson... Why would a 'mount -a' not work after your 'umount -a

Re: Why umount -A is a really bad idea

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Mike wrote: > On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Colin JN Breame wrote: > > > I tried this once, just to see what would happen. I then spent the > > next hour restoring the mount points. I've learnt a valuable > > lesson... > > Why would a 'mount -a' not work after your 'umount -a' to

RE: Why umount -A is a really bad idea

At Wednesday, August 25, 2004 5:07 PM, Mike wrote: > On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Colin JN Breame wrote: > >> I tried this once, just to see what would happen. I then spent the >> next hour restoring the mount points. I've learnt a valuable >> lesson... > > Why would a 'mount -a' not work after your '

Re: Why umount -A is a really bad idea

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Colin JN Breame wrote: > I tried this once, just to see what would happen. I then spent the next > hour restoring the mount points. I've learnt a valuable lesson... Why would a 'mount -a' not work after your 'umount -a' to restore the mounts? Mike -- Unsubscribe info: