On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 11:13:59AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 11:52:28PM -0400, Chris Faylor wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 11:12:53PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: >> >2002-06-09 Pierre Humblet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > >> > * environ.cc (addWinDefEnv): New. >> > (inWinDefEnv): New. >> > (writeWinDefEnv): New. >> > * spawn.cc (spawn_guts): Call functions above to set >> > traditional Windows environment variables when copying the >> > environment to the cygheap, before CreateProcessAsUser(). >> > Define sec_attribs and call sec_user_nih() only once. >> > * environ.h: Declare inWinDefEnv() and addWinDefEnv(), and >> > define WINDEFENVC. >> >> I don't know about the sexec question. Anyone know if there are (or >> were) any actual applications out there which use sexecve? Isn't this >> just a cygwin invention? I wonder if we should just nuke it from cygwin >> and see if anyone complains. It would certainly simplify spawn.cc. > >AFAICS, there should only be old applications left using sexec, >perhaps the original SSH.com port from Sergey, years ago. I'm >even not sure if it still works with current Cygwin. login(1) >was originally ported by using sexec but neither login(1) nor >any other application in the distro are using any sexecXX call. >I'd guess it's existance is in limbo. We *would* obviously >break backward compatibility by removing that functionality >but it's a backward compatibility to applications build at least >two years ago.
Ok. I'm in favor of getting rid of sexec in 1.3.11, then. I'll do that sometime today. cgf
