date:20030214

> Elfyn McBratney wrote on 14 Feb 2003 18:18:47 -
> > In bash you can add the following
> >
> > # DEL key in bash
> > "\e[3~": delete-char
> >
> > to your ~/.inputrc or your /etc/inputrc file to get a functioning DEL
> > ke.
>
> Thanks!  I've been wondering about that for far too long.  :-)
>
>
> BTW  I read the readline portion of "man bash" and was able to figure
> out the "~/.inputrc", "\e", ":", "delete-char" parts, but how did you
> figure out that the  key maps to "[3~"?  Searching "man bash" and
> "man readline" for "[3~" and subsets didn't seem to do the trick, nor
> did "apropos escape" or Google "[3~"...


I've known that for ages and when i forget I refer to this little charm. As
if I couldn't just look at my .inputrc ;-)



And a search on google for "bash .inputrc" comes up with loads of decent'ish
pages.


Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.exposure.org.uk



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: The humble and other editing keys

2003-02-14 Thread David Christensen

Elfyn McBratney wrote on 14 Feb 2003 18:18:47 -
> In bash you can add the following
>
> # DEL key in bash
> "\e[3~": delete-char
>
> to your ~/.inputrc or your /etc/inputrc file to get a functioning DEL
> ke.

Thanks!  I've been wondering about that for far too long.  :-)


BTW  I read the readline portion of "man bash" and was able to figure
out the "~/.inputrc", "\e", ":", "delete-char" parts, but how did you
figure out that the  key maps to "[3~"?  Searching "man bash" and
"man readline" for "[3~" and subsets didn't seem to do the trick, nor
did "apropos escape" or Google "[3~"...


TIA,

David


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Trouble installing Perl module under cygwin

> 12608240 [main] perl 934555 sync_with_child: child -50248815(0x154) died
before initialization with status code 0x1
> 12608301 [main] perl 934555 sync_with_child: *** child state child loading
dlls
> C:\CYGWIN\BINERL.EXE: *** couldn't allocate memory
> 0x1(4128768) for
'C:\CYGWIN\LIBERL5\5.8.0\CYGWIN-MULTI-64INT\AUTO\LIST\UTIL\UTIL.DLL'
alignment, Win32 error 8
>
> 18960333 [main] perl 934555 sync_with_child: child -50152399(0x160) died
before initialization with status code 0x1
> 18960396 [main] perl 934555 sync_with_child: *** child state child loading
dlls
> C:\CYGWIN\BINERL.EXE: *** couldn't allocate memory
> 0x1(4128768) for
'C:\CYGWIN\LIBERL5\5.8.0\CYGWIN-MULTI-64INT\AUTO\LIST\UTIL\UTIL.DLL'
alignment, Win32 error 8
>
> 27653514 [main] perl 934555 sync_with_child: child -50249475(0x16C) died
before initialization with status code 0x1
> 27653579 [main] perl 934555 sync_with_child: *** child state child loading
dlls
> C:\CYGWIN\BINERL.EXE: *** couldn't allocate memory
> 0x1(4128768) for
'C:\CYGWIN\LIBERL5\5.8.0\CYGWIN-MULTI-64INT\AUTO\LIST\UTIL\UTIL.DLL'
alignment, Win32 error 8

Out of curiosity what version of cygwin are you using? Mind sending along
the output of `cygcheck -svr' as an attachment, *non-compressed* of course
;-)

> etc, etc
>
> Nothing here about mapping DLL to same address as parent.
>
> However, if I exit cpan and run make by hand (it compiles C
> code), I am able to build the module without problems.
>
> Incidentally, I can't find rebase with the setup.exe. Am I
> supposed to get it from CVS or Jason Tishler's site?

>From reading the the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list it looks as though
rebase will start being distributed with cygwin. So expect an initial
release soon.

>Linkname: Index of /jason/software/rebase
>URL: http://www.tishler.net/jason/software/rebase/
>
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Steve Kelem [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
[...]



Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.exposure.org.uk



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Trouble installing Perl module under cygwin

2003-02-14 Thread Greg Matheson

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Vince Hoffman wrote:

> looks like a rebase issue, try a google on "cygwin rebase perl" and you
> should get some hints.

I understand Steve's error message (copied below) indicates a
rebase issue. I thought rebase might be the solution for some
other perl problems I am having.  I tried downloading the
rebaseall executable from Jason Tishler's site and downloaded and
installed the rebase-2.2-1-src.tar.bz2 he has just put there.
And then ran 'rebaseall -v'.

It didn't do anything for this (similar?) problem I am having
installing Term::ReadLine::Gnu with cpan:

12608240 [main] perl 934555 sync_with_child: child -50248815(0x154) died before 
initialization with status code 0x1
12608301 [main] perl 934555 sync_with_child: *** child state child loading dlls
C:\CYGWIN\BINERL.EXE: *** couldn't allocate memory
0x1(4128768) for 
'C:\CYGWIN\LIBERL5\5.8.0\CYGWIN-MULTI-64INT\AUTO\LIST\UTIL\UTIL.DLL' alignment, Win32 
error 8

18960333 [main] perl 934555 sync_with_child: child -50152399(0x160) died before 
initialization with status code 0x1
18960396 [main] perl 934555 sync_with_child: *** child state child loading dlls
C:\CYGWIN\BINERL.EXE: *** couldn't allocate memory
0x1(4128768) for 
'C:\CYGWIN\LIBERL5\5.8.0\CYGWIN-MULTI-64INT\AUTO\LIST\UTIL\UTIL.DLL' alignment, Win32 
error 8

27653514 [main] perl 934555 sync_with_child: child -50249475(0x16C) died before 
initialization with status code 0x1
27653579 [main] perl 934555 sync_with_child: *** child state child loading dlls
C:\CYGWIN\BINERL.EXE: *** couldn't allocate memory
0x1(4128768) for 
'C:\CYGWIN\LIBERL5\5.8.0\CYGWIN-MULTI-64INT\AUTO\LIST\UTIL\UTIL.DLL' alignment, Win32 
error 8

etc, etc

Nothing here about mapping DLL to same address as parent.

However, if I exit cpan and run make by hand (it compiles C
code), I am able to build the module without problems. 

Incidentally, I can't find rebase with the setup.exe. Am I
supposed to get it from CVS or Jason Tishler's site?

   Linkname: Index of /jason/software/rebase
   URL: http://www.tishler.net/jason/software/rebase/

> > -Original Message-
> > From: Steve Kelem [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

> > C:\cygwin\bin\perl.exe: *** unable to remap 
> > C:\cygwin\bin\cygiconv-2.dll 
> > to same address as parent(0x74) != 0x75
> > C:\cygwin\bin\perl.exe: *** unable to remap 
> > C:\cygwin\bin\cygiconv-2.dll 
> > to same address as parent(0x74) != 0x75
> >3810 [main] perl 6060 sync_with_child: child 4644(0x18C) 
> > died before 
> > initialization with status code 0x1
> >   14903 [main] perl 6060 sync_with_child: *** child state 
> > child loading dlls

-- 
Greg MathesonTo do is to be-- Descartes
Dr Bean's Penpal PoolTo be is to do-- Voltaire
Address: palpool Do be do be do-- Frank Sinatra
Domain:  @cn91.chinmin.edu.twMen's Restrooms, Greasewood Flats, Scottsdale

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

2003-02-14 Thread Rick Rankin


--- Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 04:08:15PM -0800, Rick Rankin wrote:
> >> I was also thinking of creating a '/dev/tty' file in the archive which
> >> was just a real file containing the words "Hey! What are YOU DOING???" I
> >> think that would cause a tar extraction to print that message to the
> >> screen.  Don't know what it would do to setup.exe, though.
> >
> >I think I'm confused. If you do this, then every time we run tar we'd see
> "Hey!
> >What are YOU DOING???" unless we removed /dev/tty? If so, it seems to me
> like
> >that would be annoying and it would be a pain to have remember to go remove
> >/dev/tty after every time we run setup to *avoid* that message.  
> 
> Um, no.  You'd get the message every time you extracted one of cygwin's
> package
> files using normal tar.  If you read what I wrote again, you'll see that I
> was
> talking about changing the archive as in the tar file, not tar itself.
> 
> Actually, just creating a file named 'con' would probably be easier.

OK. I see it now. One of these days I'll learn to read.

--Rick


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wget ignores robot.txt entry

Lowell,

Max Bowsher reported:

Or, on the command line -erobots=off :-)

Whilst this does control whether wget downloads robots.txt, a quick
test confirms that even when it does get robots.txt, it still wanders
into cgi-bin.

I'd suggest taking this to the wget list, except wget it currently
maintainer-less, and, it appears, bitrotted.

Max.

As for this:

Perhaps there is a counterpart to the above, i.e., that's being involked and someone from Redhat could
check into and rule this out.

You should realize that for open source programs like wget, the
recommended practice is to examine the source yourself.

Randall Schulz

At 17:43 2003-02-14, L Anderson wrote:

Randall R Schulz wrote:

Lowell,
What's in your "~/.wgetrc" file? If it contains this:
robots = off
Then wget will not respect a "robots.txt" file on the host from which
it is retrieving files.
Before I learned of this option (accessible _only_ via this directive
in the .wgetrc file), I did something too clever by half to get
robots.txt ignored, so I know that wget does respect it.

I have only two wgetrc related files as follows:

/etc/wgetrc
/usr/doc/wget-1.8.2/sample.wgetrc

NB: I use win98 and these are under my cygwin directory i:\cygwin
(i.e. /cygdrive/i).

I have never changed either file--I just accept the default installed
by setup. However, the two files differ by a few lines which are just
comments anyway. i.e. doing:

$ diff /etc/wgetrc /usr/doc/wget-1.8.2/sample.wgetrc
73,74c73,74
< # You can set the default proxy for Wget to use. It will override the
< # value in the environment.
---
> # You can set the default proxies for Wget to use for http and ftp.
> # They will override the value in the environment.
75a76
> #ftp_proxy = http://proxy.yoyodyne.com:18023/

shows this. Moreover,

$ grep robot /etc/wgetrc
# Setting this to off makes Wget not download /robots.txt. Be sure to
# know *exactly* what /robots.txt is and how it is used before changing
#robots = on

shows the only references to "robot" are also comments.

The stated default for wget is "robots=on" which I have seen honored
for quite a number of other downloads and since I didn't use "-e
robots=off", that can't explain it. The only other thing I have found
that might be related is not under my control and I haven't yet
figured out how to check it. From the wget documentation it states:

"
The second, less known mechanism, enables the author of an individual
document to specify whether they want the links from the file to be
followed by a robot. This is achieved using the META tag, like this:

This is explained in some detail at
. Wget supports this
method of robot exclusion in addition to the usual /robots.txt exclusion.
"

Perhaps there is a counterpart to the above, i.e., that's being involked and someone from Redhat could
check into and rule this out.

Thanks (and still puzzled)!

Lowell Anderson

--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/

[ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: gdb-20030214-1

I've made a new version of GDB (aka insight) available for downloading.
This version is a refresh from CVS on sources.redhat.com.

This release has more insight improvements from Martin Hunt and Keith
Seitz.  There are (so far unofficial) fixes from Raoul Gough for dealing
with relocated DLLs and more improvements from Raoul in displaying
addresses of functions in system DLLs.  I've added a fix for reinstating
breakpoints in shared libraries on successive runs.  And, there are the
standard raft of bug fixes from the other dedicated gdb developers.

To update your installation, click on the "Install Cygwin now" link on
the http://cygwin.com/ web page.  This downloads setup.exe to your
system.  Then, run setup and answer all of the questions.

If you do have problems with this version of insight please send them to
the insight mailing list at "insight at sources dot redhat dot com".
Then the insight maintainers can help rectify them.

  *** CYGWIN-ANNOUNCE UNSUBSCRIBE INFO ***

If you want to unsubscribe from the cygwin-announce mailing list, look
at the "List-Unsubscribe: " tag in the email header of this message.
Send email to the address specified there.  It will be in the format:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

If you need more information on unsubscribing, start reading here:

http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#unsubscribe-simple

Please read *all* of the information on unsubscribing that is available
starting at this URL.

Christopher Faylor


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Win 2000 : Open Files With Word & Excel From The Command Line

Steve,

Double damn!

Or maybe... Third time's the charm. Yeah, that's it!

-==-
#!/bin/bash

wwArgs=()

for arg; do
wwArgs[${#wwArgs[@]}]="$(cygpath -m "$arg")"
done

exec "/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft Office/Office/winword.exe" 
"${wwArgs[@]}"
-==-


Randall Schulz


Steve,

Damn. I forgot the part about converting the argument names from 
Cygwin / POSIX to Windows.

This is better:

-==-
#!/bin/bash

wwArgs=()

for arg; do
wwArgs${#wwArgs@]}]="$(cygpath -w "$arg")"
done

exec "/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft Office/Office/winword.exe" 
"${wwArgs[@]}"
-==-

Note that to use the array syntax you have to use BASH.

This is still somewhat limited, in that it assumes all the arguments 
to the script are file names. I don't know that WINWORD.EXE accepts 
anything else, but if it does and you want to use them, this would 
have to be refined further.

Lastly, I guess there is now some Cygwin-specific aspects to this.

Randall Schulz


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Win 2000 : Open Files With Word & Excel From The Command Line

Steve,

Damn. I forgot the part about converting the argument names from Cygwin 
/ POSIX to Windows.

This is better:

-==-
#!/bin/bash

wwArgs=()

for arg; do
wwArgs${#wwArgs@]}]="$(cygpath -w "$arg")"
done

exec "/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft Office/Office/winword.exe" 
"${wwArgs[@]}"
-==-

Note that to use the array syntax you have to use BASH.

This is still somewhat limited, in that it assumes all the arguments to 
the script are file names. I don't know that WINWORD.EXE accepts 
anything else, but if it does and you want to use them, this would have 
to be refined further.

Lastly, I guess there is now some Cygwin-specific aspects to this.

Randall Schulz


Steve,

Do your scripts look something like this:

-==-
#!/bin/sh

exec "/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft Office/Office/winword.exe" "$@"
-==-

If they're missing the "$@" part, they're not passing on the arguments 
you give the script to "winword.exe" or "excel.exe". The "exec" part 
at the beginning is optional, but definitely recommended in cases like this.


Oh, and to satisfy Thorsten: This is scripting 101 stuff and is in no 
way Cygwin-specific.


Randall Schulz


At 19:55 2003-02-14, Steve wrote:
Hi;

I'm on win 2000 and I am using cygwin.

I put script files called "word" and "excel" in my /usr/local/bin. 
These files have the path to the ms word and ms excel executables.

They work, they bring up the apps, but I can't get the apps to take 
command line arguments to open remote files.

For example:

cygwin> word c:/docs/memos/parking/myfile.doc

opens only word not "myfile.doc".

Is there any way around this?  I would love to be able to do this as 
it is monumentally faster then scrolling through a file dialog box or 
explorer to open up a file.

Thanks

Steve


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Win 2000 : Open Files With Word & Excel From The Command Line

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 08:42:23PM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
>Oh, and to satisfy Thorsten: This is scripting 101 stuff and is in no 
>way Cygwin-specific.

D'oh!  I missed an opportunity to be mean.  It didn't even cross my mind.
What is *wrong* with me???

Grumble.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

[ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: tcltk-20030214-1

I've made a new version of and tcltk available for downloading.  This
version is a refresh from sources.redhat.com.

There is only one change in this version that I am aware of.  tclsh84
is now reputed to understand cygwin paths, thanks to a patch from Mumit
Khan.

To update your installation, click on the "Install Cygwin now" link on
the http://cygwin.com/ web page.  This downloads setup.exe to your
system.  Then, run setup and answer all of the questions.

If you have problems with this version of tcltk PLEASE SEND BUG REPORTS
TO THE INSIGHT MAILING LIST at "insight at sources dot redhat dot com".
Then the insight maintainers can help rectify these issues.  They are
familiar with cygwin but, for obvious reasons, should not be forced
to read the cygwin mailing list to find tcltk/insight problems.

  *** CYGWIN-ANNOUNCE UNSUBSCRIBE INFO ***

If you want to unsubscribe from the cygwin-announce mailing list, look
at the "List-Unsubscribe: " tag in the email header of this message.
Send email to the address specified there.  It will be in the format:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

If you need more information on unsubscribing, start reading here:

http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#unsubscribe-simple

Please read *all* of the information on unsubscribing that is available
starting at this URL.

Christopher Faylor


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Win 2000 : Open Files With Word & Excel From The Command Line

Steve,

Do your scripts look something like this:

-==-
#!/bin/sh

exec "/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft Office/Office/winword.exe" "$@"
-==-

If they're missing the "$@" part, they're not passing on the arguments 
you give the script to "winword.exe" or "excel.exe". The "exec" part at 
the beginning is optional, but definitely recommended in cases like this.


Oh, and to satisfy Thorsten: This is scripting 101 stuff and is in no 
way Cygwin-specific.


Randall Schulz


At 19:55 2003-02-14, Steve wrote:
Hi;

I'm on win 2000 and I am using cygwin.

I put script files called "word" and "excel" in my /usr/local/bin. 
These files have the path to the ms word and ms excel executables.

They work, they bring up the apps, but I can't get the apps to take 
command line arguments to open remote files.

For example:

cygwin> word c:/docs/memos/parking/myfile.doc

opens only word not "myfile.doc".

Is there any way around this?  I would love to be able to do this as 
it is monumentally faster then scrolling through a file dialog box or 
explorer to open up a file.

Thanks

Steve


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Group name getting set to 'mkpasswd'

There are two posts on [EMAIL PROTECTED] at the moment where a discussed
change and perhaps implemented (?) on [EMAIL PROTECTED] has come up.
The first was ("mkpasswd: [5] Access is denied.") where the user, Peter
Canning had problems running mkpasswd agains his own user and the second
that's just come in is ("no man pages"). Both have the group set to
'mkpasswd'.

Also this was in the strace output that Peter sent in, I withheld this bit,
as I didn't quite know whether this was intended (from mkpasswd's side)

   65   19353 [main] mkpasswd 1148 pwdgrp::read_group: Completing
/etc/group:
mkpasswd:S-1-5-21-1045767534-453787399-1741382010-513:401:canning

Just wondered what to reply with. Is it a simple matter of running mkgroup?
or mkpasswd?

Sorry if this sounds like a groan, I just don't want to reply with the wrong
answer as I quite often do ;-)


Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.exposure.org.uk



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Win 2000 : Open Files With Word & Excel From The Command Line

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 10:55:22PM -0500, Steve wrote:
>I put script files called "word" and "excel" in my /usr/local/bin. These
>files have the path to the ms word and ms excel executables.
>
>They work, they bring up the apps, but I can't get the apps to take
>command line arguments to open remote files.
>
>For example:
>
>cygwin> word c:/docs/memos/parking/myfile.doc
>
>opens only word not "myfile.doc".
>
>Is there any way around this?  I would love to be able to do this as it
>is monumentally faster then scrolling through a file dialog box or
>explorer to open up a file.

You probably want something like:

[Contents of /usr/local/bin/word]

#!/bin/sh
exec /cygdrive/c/'Program Files/Microsoft Office/Office'/winword `cygpath -w $1`

I don't know if word accepts paths with "forward slashes" or not (don't
think it does) but the above will convert the slashes to backslashes and
will have the added benefit of allowing you to use cygwin style paths,
if you so choose.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no man pages

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 08:18:40PM -0800, christophe thiebot wrote:
>S cygcheck -c cygwin-doc |grep cygwin-doc
>has the output:
>cygwin-doc 1.3-2
>
>$ ls -al /usr/man/man1/ps.1.gz
>has the output:
>--+   1 CHTHImkpasswd 1308 Oct 17 17:22 
>/usr/man/man1/ps.1.gz

chmod -R a+r /usr/man

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Win 2000 : Open Files With Word & Excel From The Command Line

2003-02-14 Thread Steve

Hi;

I'm on win 2000 and I am using cygwin.

I put script files called "word" and "excel" in my /usr/local/bin. These
files have the path to the ms word and ms excel executables.

They work, they bring up the apps, but I can't get the apps to take
command line arguments to open remote files.

For example:

cygwin> word c:/docs/memos/parking/myfile.doc

opens only word not "myfile.doc".

Is there any way around this?  I would love to be able to do this as it
is monumentally faster then scrolling through a file dialog box or
explorer to open up a file.

Thanks

Steve



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no man pages

2003-02-14 Thread christophe thiebot

S cygcheck -c cygwin-doc |grep cygwin-doc
has the output:
cygwin-doc 1.3-2

$ ls -al /usr/man/man1/ps.1.gz
has the output:
--+   1 CHTHImkpasswd 1308 Oct 17 17:22 
/usr/man/man1/ps.1.gz

$ which man retuns "man: Command not found"
However, I checked that /usr/bin/man.exe is existing.

With cygcheck, I got the packages number man(1.5j-1) and which(1.5-1).

Maybe, there is a problem of config. here is what I have by doing cygcheck 
-s:
Windows XP Professional Ver 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1

Path:   C:\cygwin\bin
   C:\cygwin\usr\X11R6\bin
   C:\cygwin\bin
   C:\cygwin\usr\X11R6\bin
   C:\cygwin\usr\local\bin
   C:\cygwin\bin
   C:\cygwin\bin
   c:\Program Files\Compaq\Compaq Management Agents\Dmi\Win32\Bin
   c:\WINDOWS\system32
   c:\WINDOWS
   c:\WINDOWS\System32\Wbem
   c:\Program Files\ActivCard\ActivCard Gold\resources
   C:\cygwin\usr\X11R6\bin
   .
   .

SysDir: C:\WINDOWS\System32
WinDir: C:\WINDOWS
HOME = `c:\Documents and Settings\CHTHI'
MAKE_MODE = `unix'
PWD = `/usr/bin'
USER = `CHTHI'

Regards,
Christophe THIEBOT

From: "Elfyn McBratney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Elfyn McBratney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "cygwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"christophe thiebot" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: no man pages
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:08:06 -

> I cannot display any man pages on my newly installed cygwin 1.3.20.1
> When I do: man ps
> I got:
> "No manual entry for ps"
> MANPATH was not set and I set it to /usr/man
> I checked that /usr/man/man1/ps.1.gz is present
> I saw a /etc/man.config. How to tell man to read this man.config?

man(1) has a search order of

/etc/man.config
/usr/lib/man.config
/usr/share/misc/man.config

So it will get checked. As you say you already have /usr/man/man1/ps.1.gz ,
so you have installed the cygwin-doc package (?). What is the ouput of the
following

$ cygcheck -c cygwin-doc |grep cygwin-doc
$ ls -al /usr/man/man1/ps.1.gz
$ which man

If the first command (the cygcheck one) doesn't return any output then you
don't have the package installed or there was an error when it was
installed. Return to setup.exe and reinstall the cygwin-doc package. And if
the third command third command (which man) doesn't return either /bin/man
or /usr/bin/man then your not using man(1) distributed with cygwin (some
package I had in my path distributed a man prog so...just checking).

Btw, you should't need to modify/set MANPATH unless you have installed
packages with manual pages that are in non-standard places.


Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.exposure.org.uk



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/


_
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no man pages

* christophe thiebot (03-02-15 03:44 +0100)
> I cannot display any man pages on my newly installed cygwin 1.3.20.1
> When I do: man ps
> I got:
> "No manual entry for ps"
> MANPATH was not set and I set it to /usr/man
> I checked that /usr/man/man1/ps.1.gz is present
> I saw a /etc/man.config. How to tell man to read this man.config?

"man man" says: you don't have to - this is the default.


Thorsten
-- 
 Content-Type: text/explicit; charset=ISO-8859-666 (Parental Advisory)
 Content-Transfer-Warning: message contains innuendos not suited for
 children under the age of 18


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no man pages

> I cannot display any man pages on my newly installed cygwin 1.3.20.1
> When I do: man ps
> I got:
> "No manual entry for ps"
> MANPATH was not set and I set it to /usr/man
> I checked that /usr/man/man1/ps.1.gz is present
> I saw a /etc/man.config. How to tell man to read this man.config?

man(1) has a search order of

/etc/man.config
/usr/lib/man.config
/usr/share/misc/man.config

So it will get checked. As you say you already have /usr/man/man1/ps.1.gz ,
so you have installed the cygwin-doc package (?). What is the ouput of the
following

$ cygcheck -c cygwin-doc |grep cygwin-doc
$ ls -al /usr/man/man1/ps.1.gz
$ which man

If the first command (the cygcheck one) doesn't return any output then you
don't have the package installed or there was an error when it was
installed. Return to setup.exe and reinstall the cygwin-doc package. And if
the third command third command (which man) doesn't return either /bin/man
or /usr/bin/man then your not using man(1) distributed with cygwin (some
package I had in my path distributed a man prog so...just checking).

Btw, you should't need to modify/set MANPATH unless you have installed
packages with manual pages that are in non-standard places.


Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.exposure.org.uk



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no man pages

Christophe,

Man pages are sold separately.

Use Cygwin Setup to download and install the "cygwin-doc" package.

Unless you have added manual pages of your own to the system, there's 
no need to set MANPATH.

Randall Schulz


At 18:44 2003-02-14, christophe thiebot wrote:
I cannot display any man pages on my newly installed cygwin 1.3.20.1
When I do: man ps
I got:
"No manual entry for ps"

MANPATH was not set and I set it to /usr/man
I checked that /usr/man/man1/ps.1.gz is present
I saw a /etc/man.config. How to tell man to read this man.config?

Thanks,
Christophe



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

no man pages

2003-02-14 Thread christophe thiebot

I cannot display any man pages on my newly installed cygwin 1.3.20.1
When I do: man ps
I got:
"No manual entry for ps"
MANPATH was not set and I set it to /usr/man
I checked that /usr/man/man1/ps.1.gz is present
I saw a /etc/man.config. How to tell man to read this man.config?

Thanks,
Christophe



_
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

2003-02-14 Thread Charles Wilson

Christopher Faylor wrote:


FWIW, I've recently sent email to Mumit Khan for similar reasons.  His
"ancient" gnu-win32 site still shows up in google and some of the
outdated techniques espoused there demonstrably cause confusion.


It's even worse that you think.  Last week's LWN contained a newssnippet 
about "Xmingwin" -- a linux-build, mingw-target cross compiler leveraged 
off of Earnie's mingw.  Which, of course, has a heritage from cygwin.

If you read the article that lwn refers to,
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-sc10.html
you find that ITS "resources" section contains a ton of links to a lot 
of old, unmaintained, and otherwise inaccurate mingw and cygwin sites -- 
including two separate links to Mumit's pages.

And this is a NEW, January 2003 article in IBM's developerWorks.

Sigh.

--Chuck


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 01:30:09AM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 01:14:54AM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
>> >> Actually, just creating a file named 'con' would probably be easier.
>> >
>> >Isn't 'con' a reserved name in windows?
>>
>> That's kinda the whole point.
>
>Right...I get it now.
>
>> >I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to extract it from the tar
>> >archive.
>>
>> It works just as I would expect, and just like /dev/tty works, which
>> is no surprise.  The drawback is that it won't do anything if you're
>> running from rxvt or X-Windows, though.
>
>If there's a chance that this would still go un-noticed then can we go with
>the package-version.cyg/car packaging scheme? Most user's IMO would just
>think that we've started our own rpm thing and would be "forced" to use
>setup.exe as they would have done usually or not. That's what it's there for
>afterall.

I have no problem with changing the extension.  Once the option is available
I'll do a wholesale rename of the package repository and update upset so
that it knows how to find these types of files.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Wget ignores robot.txt entry

2003-02-14 Thread L Anderson

Randall R Schulz wrote:

Lowell,

What's in your "~/.wgetrc" file? If it contains this:

robots = off

Then wget will not respect a "robots.txt" file on the host from which it
is retrieving files.

Before I learned of this option (accessible _only_ via this directive in
the .wgetrc file), I did something too clever by half to get robots.txt
ignored, so I know that wget does respect it.

I have only two wgetrc related files as follows:

/etc/wgetrc
/usr/doc/wget-1.8.2/sample.wgetrc

NB: I use win98 and these are under my cygwin directory i:\cygwin (i.e.
/cygdrive/i).

I have never changed either file--I just accept the default installed by
setup. However, the two files differ by a few lines which are just
comments anyway. i.e. doing:

shows this. Moreover,

$ grep robot /etc/wgetrc
# Setting this to off makes Wget not download /robots.txt. Be sure to
# know *exactly* what /robots.txt is and how it is used before changing
#robots = on

shows the only references to "robot" are also comments.

The stated default for wget is "robots=on" which I have seen honored for
quite a number of other downloads and since I didn't use "-e
robots=off", that can't explain it. The only other thing I have found
that might be related is not under my control and I haven't yet figured
out how to check it. From the wget documentation it states:

This is explained in some detail at
. Wget supports this method
of robot exclusion in addition to the usual /robots.txt exclusion.
"

Perhaps there is a counterpart to the above, i.e., that's being involked and someone from Redhat could
check into and rule this out.

Thanks (and still puzzled)!

Lowell Anderson

Randall Schulz

At 18:14 2003-02-13, L Anderson wrote:

Using the latest of things Cygwin, I downloaded some stuff with wget
from to peruse off-line and noticed a problem I
can't explain:

The file has the entries:

User-agent: *
Disallow: /snapshots/
Disallow: /cgi-bin/
Disallow: /cgi2-bin/

so wget should not download /cgi-bin/.

However, "wget -o cygwincom.log -m -p --no-parent -X /cygwin,/ml
http://cygwin.com/"; downloads /cgi-bin anyway.

NB. "wget -o cygwincom.log -m -p --no-parent -X /cgi-bin,/cygwin,/ml
http://cygwin.com/ doesn't download /cgi-bin

I ran a validity check on and found no
errors.

Is this a bug in wget or am I doing something wrong?

Thanks,

Lowell Anderson

--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

> On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 01:14:54AM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> >> Actually, just creating a file named 'con' would probably be easier.
> >
> >Isn't 'con' a reserved name in windows?
>
> That's kinda the whole point.

Right...I get it now.

> >I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to extract it from the tar
> >archive.
>
> It works just as I would expect, and just like /dev/tty works, which
> is no surprise.  The drawback is that it won't do anything if you're
> running from rxvt or X-Windows, though.

If there's a chance that this would still go un-noticed then can we go with
the package-version.cyg/car packaging scheme? Most user's IMO would just
think that we've started our own rpm thing and would be "forced" to use
setup.exe as they would have done usually or not. That's what it's there for
afterall.

> cgf

Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.exposure.org.uk

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

2003-02-14 Thread Mathias Gygax

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 01:12:49PM -0600, Robert Citek wrote:
> 
> They are using apt-get to install Cygwin.  :-)
> [ wishful thinking ]

you remind me of something. i once tried exactly this, but failed on
some C++ stuff which i could not resolve. some includes failed, but i
guess its within the apt-get source and the win32 #defines. dunno. gave
up and stomped it back to earth.

> Imagine installing, upgrading, and managing a bunch of OpenSource Software
> (not just Cygwin) on a Windows machine with 'apt-get.'

this is on my wishlist too :)

 - regards, turrican

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 01:14:54AM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
>> Actually, just creating a file named 'con' would probably be easier.
>
>Isn't 'con' a reserved name in windows?

That's kinda the whole point.

>I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to extract it from the tar
>archive.

It works just as I would expect, and just like /dev/tty works, which
is no surprise.  The drawback is that it won't do anything if you're
running from rxvt or X-Windows, though.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

> Actually, just creating a file named 'con' would probably be easier.

Isn't 'con' a reserved name in windows? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able
to extract it from the tar archive.


Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.exposure.org.uk



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 04:08:15PM -0800, Rick Rankin wrote:
>> I was also thinking of creating a '/dev/tty' file in the archive which
>> was just a real file containing the words "Hey! What are YOU DOING???" I
>> think that would cause a tar extraction to print that message to the
>> screen.  Don't know what it would do to setup.exe, though.
>
>I think I'm confused. If you do this, then every time we run tar we'd see "Hey!
>What are YOU DOING???" unless we removed /dev/tty? If so, it seems to me like
>that would be annoying and it would be a pain to have remember to go remove
>/dev/tty after every time we run setup to *avoid* that message.  

Um, no.  You'd get the message every time you extracted one of cygwin's package
files using normal tar.  If you read what I wrote again, you'll see that I was
talking about changing the archive as in the tar file, not tar itself.

Actually, just creating a file named 'con' would probably be easier.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 09:42:19AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 08:59, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>I suppose so, but, again, it seems like many people *recently* are
>>unaware of the setup program entirely.
>
>Hmm, I think we should add a new screen to setup.exe.
>
>After the install completes..
>
>"Your cygwin install is now ready to use.  Please run setup.exe again
>if you want to Install new packages, Remove installed packages, or
>Update your install with the latest versions of your installed
>packages."

I like it.  Apparently it is extremely confusing to many people that running
"setup.exe" again is how you update your system, Microsoft conventions not
withstanding.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

2003-02-14 Thread Rick Rankin


--- Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 02:21:18PM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> >Chris,
> >
> >At 13:59 2003-02-14, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:50:48AM +1100, andrew clarke wrote:
> >>>On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 01:26:15PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>>
>  ...
> >>>
> >>>If I may, speaking on behalf of some of the less-technical Cygwin users,
> >>>some points:
> >>>
> >>>Obviously for simple .tar.bz2 files without any dependencies or post-
> >>>install scripts, etc, untarring would appear to users to be a harmless
> >>>thing to do.
> >
> >Maybe a new naming convention might serve to deter the naive: 
> >PackageName-versionOrDateTag.car ("Cygwin ARchive"). It would still be 
> >a BZip2-compressed TAR file, just as Java's ".jar" files are PKZIP 
> >files under a different name (and with some extra content structuring 
> >conventions).
> 
> You know, I almost mentioned that but I think that someone (Robert
> Collins maybe?) may have suggested this previously and I adamantly
> intoned that these were ".tar.bz2 files dammit".
> 
> However, changing the extension would go some way towards alleviating
> this problem and it would open the door to creating different package
> formats, identifiable by magic number.
> 
> I was also thinking of creating a '/dev/tty' file in the archive which
> was just a real file containing the words "Hey! What are YOU DOING???" I
> think that would cause a tar extraction to print that message to the
> screen.  Don't know what it would do to setup.exe, though.

I think I'm confused. If you do this, then every time we run tar we'd see "Hey!
What are YOU DOING???" unless we removed /dev/tty? If so, it seems to me like
that would be annoying and it would be a pain to have remember to go remove
/dev/tty after every time we run setup to *avoid* that message.  

--Rick

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 10:53, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 09:28, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > I was also thinking of creating a '/dev/tty' file in the archive which
> > > was just a real file containing the words "Hey! What are YOU DOING???" I
> > > think that would cause a tar extraction to print that message to the
> > > screen.  Don't know what it would do to setup.exe, though.
> >
> > probably create c:/cygwin/dev/tty...
> >
> > Rob
> 
> FYI:

I meant, thats what setup.exe will do.

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: .



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

2003-02-14 Thread Igor Pechtchanski

On 15 Feb 2003, Robert Collins wrote:

> On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 09:28, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I was also thinking of creating a '/dev/tty' file in the archive which
> > was just a real file containing the words "Hey! What are YOU DOING???" I
> > think that would cause a tar extraction to print that message to the
> > screen.  Don't know what it would do to setup.exe, though.
>
> probably create c:/cygwin/dev/tty...
>
> Rob

FYI:
$ tar tvf test.tar
drwxrwxrwx SYSTEM/SYSTEM 0 2003-02-14 17:48:16 dev/
-rw-rw-rw- SYSTEM/SYSTEM27 2003-02-14 17:48:16 dev/tty
$ tar xOf test.tar dev/tty
Hey! What are YOU DOING???
$ cat test.tar | (cd / && tar xvf -)
dev/
dev/tty
Hey! What are YOU DOING???
tar: dev/tty: Cannot utime: No such file or directory
tar: Error exit delayed from previous errors
$

As for creating c:\cygwin\dev\tty, I do that anyway - allows
Tab-completion.
Igor
-- 
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
  |\  _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-.  ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'   Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk!
  -- /usr/games/fortune


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: mkpasswd: [5] Access is denied.

> The strace output I provided was for a command that failed.  I just forgot
> to mention that running
>  strace --output=mkpasswd.strace.txt mkpasswd -u canning -d
> produces the following message:
>   mkpasswd: [5] Access is denied
> as well as producing the strace output in the file that I attached to my
> original message.
>
>  - Peter Canning
>
> At 03:16 PM 2/14/2003, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> > > I have been unable to successfully run mkpasswd -d since our
corporation
> > > upgraded to MS Exchange 2000.  When I run
> > >  mkpasswd -d

>From the above  (mkpasswd -d) I thought you meant it was that
exact command that was failing and not `mkpasswd -u canning -d', which from
the output below it would look that way as it was printing more than just
your user information.

> > > I get the following output
> > >  SYSTEM:*:18:544:,S-1-5-18::
> > >  Administrators:*:544:544:,S-1-5-32-544::
> > >  mkpasswd: [5] Access is denied.
> > >
> > > I suspect this is caused by some problem with the configuration of the
> > > domain controller, but I don't know enough about domain controllers to
> > > guess any more than that.
> > > The problem is preventing me from using sash to log in remotely to my
> >machine.
> > >
> > > I've attached the output of running
> > >  strace --output=mkpasswd.strace.txt mkpasswd -u canning -d
> > > to this message.  I have been unable to interpret this output enough
to
> > > figure out what is causing the problem.  If anyone can figure out what
is
> > > causing the problem, and suggest what might be done to fix it, I would
be
> > > grateful.
> >
> >
> >Can you provide strace output from when you are running `mkpasswd -d'? As
> >what you provided was for a command that worked (?).

What user are you running mkpasswd as? If not Administrator, can you run it
as Administrator?


Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.exposure.org.uk



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: mkpasswd: [5] Access is denied.

2003-02-14 Thread Peter Canning

The strace output I provided was for a command that failed.  I just forgot 
to mention that running
strace --output=mkpasswd.strace.txt mkpasswd -u canning -d
produces the following message:
 mkpasswd: [5] Access is denied
as well as producing the strace output in the file that I attached to my 
original message.

- Peter Canning

At 03:16 PM 2/14/2003, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> I have been unable to successfully run mkpasswd -d since our corporation
> upgraded to MS Exchange 2000.  When I run
>  mkpasswd -d
> I get the following output
>  SYSTEM:*:18:544:,S-1-5-18::
>  Administrators:*:544:544:,S-1-5-32-544::
>  mkpasswd: [5] Access is denied.
>
> I suspect this is caused by some problem with the configuration of the
> domain controller, but I don't know enough about domain controllers to
> guess any more than that.
> The problem is preventing me from using sash to log in remotely to my
machine.
>
> I've attached the output of running
>  strace --output=mkpasswd.strace.txt mkpasswd -u canning -d
> to this message.  I have been unable to interpret this output enough to
> figure out what is causing the problem.  If anyone can figure out what is
> causing the problem, and suggest what might be done to fix it, I would be
> grateful.


Can you provide strace output from when you are running `mkpasswd -d'? As
what you provided was for a command that worked (?).


Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.exposure.org.uk



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Trouble installing Perl module under cygwin

2003-02-14 Thread Steve Kelem

Thanks!  Downloading and running rebaseall seems to have fixed the problem.

Steve

Vince Hoffman wrote:


looks like a rebase issue, try a google on "cygwin rebase perl" and you
should get some hints.

 

-Original Message-
From: Steve Kelem [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 14 February 2003 05:48
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Trouble installing Perl module under cygwin




I used cygwin's setup to load perl 5.8.0.  I was able to use 
perl's cpan 
module to install several modules okay.
However when trying to install GDTextUtil-0.84 (install 
GD::Text), the 
build process complains:
% perl Makefile.PL
Checking if your kit is complete...
Looks good
C:\cygwin\bin\perl.exe: *** unable to remap 
C:\cygwin\bin\cygiconv-2.dll 
to same address as parent(0x74) != 0x75
C:\cygwin\bin\perl.exe: *** unable to remap 
C:\cygwin\bin\cygiconv-2.dll 
to same address as parent(0x74) != 0x75
  3810 [main] perl 6060 sync_with_child: child 4644(0x18C) 
died before 
initialization with status code 0x1
 14903 [main] perl 6060 sync_with_child: *** child state 
child loading dlls

Does anyone know how to fix this?

Thanks,
Steve Kelem





--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

   


 





--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: mkpasswd: [5] Access is denied.

> I have been unable to successfully run mkpasswd -d since our corporation
> upgraded to MS Exchange 2000.  When I run
>  mkpasswd -d
> I get the following output
>  SYSTEM:*:18:544:,S-1-5-18::
>  Administrators:*:544:544:,S-1-5-32-544::
>  mkpasswd: [5] Access is denied.
>
> I suspect this is caused by some problem with the configuration of the
> domain controller, but I don't know enough about domain controllers to
> guess any more than that.
> The problem is preventing me from using sash to log in remotely to my
machine.
>
> I've attached the output of running
>  strace --output=mkpasswd.strace.txt mkpasswd -u canning -d
> to this message.  I have been unable to interpret this output enough to
> figure out what is causing the problem.  If anyone can figure out what is
> causing the problem, and suggest what might be done to fix it, I would be
> grateful.


Can you provide strace output from when you are running `mkpasswd -d'? As
what you provided was for a command that worked (?).


Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.exposure.org.uk



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 08:07, andrew clarke wrote:

> 
> --08:06:16--  http://cygwin.com/setup.exe
> 
>  4 Last-Modified: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 00:50:47 GMT
> 
> Hmm, nobody is working on it after all?

Thats the production release. We change that only when we are *sure*
that the new version is fully stable.

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 04:59:57PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> > If you are a nontechnical cygwin user, then why would you be making
> > any determination of what is harmless or not harmless?  I would think
> > that it would be the reverse -- people who really know what they're
> > doing (or think they know what they're doing) would be untarring.
>
> Then the problem may be due to nontechnical people thinking they know
> what they're doing.  ;-)
>
> > >I suspect people aren't reading the notes near the bottom of
> > >http://www.cygwin.com/download.html, or if they are, they don't believe
> > >what they read, notably the "Installing Cygwin using this method
[untar]
> > >is not recommended." bit, because there's no explanation as to why
> > >it's not recommended.
> >
> > Again, if you're nontechnical why would you draw the conclusion "They
didn't
> > tell me why, so it must be ok"?  And, even if you did come to that
conclusion,
> > wouldn't it make sense to *try* setup.exe when the download/untar
combination
> > obviously doesn't work?
>
> There may be some sort of "it worked once with package XYZ, so it should
> work with package ABC too" mentality going on.
>
> > That's a viable theory.  This could well be.  However, it doesn't
explain
> > an increase in this behavior unless cygwin has just become more popular
> > and the 1% of people who decide not to use setup.exe have just become
> > 1% of a larger number.
>
> Quite likely.
>
> > >Then there are the numerous issues with the UI of the Setup program
> > >itself which no doubt dissuade people from using it.
> >
> > I suppose so, but, again, it seems like many people *recently* are
unaware
> > of the setup program entirely.
>
> So what are these people using to extract the package contents?  AFAIK
> WinZip doesn't support bzip2, so something tells me they must've used
> Setup at least once just to install Cygwin's bzip2 package, unless they
> went to a bit of effort to find a non-Cygwin bzip2 decompressor, then
> open the .tar with WinZip.

WinRAR has this ability.

> Hmm, actually, the first hit for bzip2 on Google leads to
> http://sources.redhat.com/bzip2/ where there is a non-Cygwin Win32 version
> of bzip2 just a page down, which I find is a little ironic, but probably
> little more than coincidence.  :-)


Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.exposure.org.uk



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

mkpasswd: [5] Access is denied.

2003-02-14 Thread Peter Canning

I have been unable to successfully run mkpasswd -d since our corporation 
upgraded to MS Exchange 2000.  When I run
mkpasswd -d
I get the following output
SYSTEM:*:18:544:,S-1-5-18::
Administrators:*:544:544:,S-1-5-32-544::
mkpasswd: [5] Access is denied.

I suspect this is caused by some problem with the configuration of the 
domain controller, but I don't know enough about domain controllers to 
guess any more than that.
The problem is preventing me from using sash to log in remotely to my machine.

I've attached the output of running
strace --output=mkpasswd.strace.txt mkpasswd -u canning -d
to this message.  I have been unable to interpret this output enough to 
figure out what is causing the problem.  If anyone can figure out what is 
causing the problem, and suggest what might be done to fix it, I would be 
grateful.

	thanks,
	Peter Canning

PS: mkgroup -d works fine.**
Program name: C:\cygwin\bin\mkpasswd.exe (1148)
App version:  1003.20, api: 0.73
DLL version:  1003.20, api: 0.73
DLL build:2003-02-08 12:10
OS version:   Windows NT-5.0
Heap size:402653184
Date/Time:2003-02-14 14:10:09
**
  5221064 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA0404D0: !C:=C:\Program 
Files\Common Files\System\MAPI\1033\nt
  1491213 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040510: 
!D:=D:\devel\jedi\bwsrc\commands\com\vitria\CVS
  1191332 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040548: A1_HOME=D:\home\canning
  4211753 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040568: 
A1_JAVADIR=C:\java\jdk1.3.1_06
  1161869 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040590: A1_VSDIR=C:\Program 
Files\Microsoft Visual Studio
  1061975 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040008: A1_WS=D:\devel\jedi
  1072082 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA0405C8: 
A2_EXPDIR=D:\devel\jedi\export
  1052187 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA0405F0: 
A2_JAVAPATH=C:\java\jdk1.3.1_06\bin
  1042291 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040618: A2_MSVCDIR=C:\Program 
Files\Microsoft Visual Studio\VC98
  1052396 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040658: 
A2_PERSONAL_CLASSPATH=.;D:\home\canning\lib\java
  1042500 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040690: 
A2_PERSONAL_PATH=.;D:\home\canning\bin
  1052605 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA0406C0: A2_VSCOMMONDIR=C:\Program 
Files\Microsoft Visual Studio\Common
  1112716 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040708: A3_MSDEVDIR=C:\Program 
Files\Microsoft Visual Studio\Common\msdev98
  1052821 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040750: 
A3_NAGUS_CLASSPATH=D:\devel\jedi\export\java;D:\devel\jedi\export\jars\bw_thirdparty.jar
  1052926 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA0407B0: 
A4_CLASSPATH=.;D:\home\canning\lib\java;D:\devel\jedi\export\java;D:\devel\jedi\export\jars\bw_thirdparty.jar
  1063032 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040828: A4_MSDEVPATH=C:\Program 
Files\Microsoft Visual Studio\Common\msdev98\BIN;C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual 
Studio\VC98\BIN;C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio\Common\TOOLS\WINNT;C:\Program 
Files\Microsoft Visual Studio\Common\TOOLS
  1253157 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040920: A5_DEVELPATH=C:\Program 
Files\Microsoft Visual Studio\Common\msdev98\BIN;C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual 
Studio\VC98\BIN;C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio\Common\TOOLS\WINNT;C:\Program 
Files\Microsoft Visual Studio\Common\TOOLS;D:\devel\jedi\export\bin\win32
  1063263 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040A30: 
ALLUSERSPROFILE=C:\Documents and Settings\All Users
  1043367 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040A68: APPDATA=C:\Documents and 
Settings\canning\Application Data
  1033470 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040AA8: BSERVDN=/Servers/bserv1
  1043574 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040AC8: 
BUILD_JAVAFLAGSX=-bootclasspath 
C:\java\jdk1.3.1_06\jre\lib\rt.jar;C:\java\jdk1.3.1_06\jre\lib\i18n.jar
  1043678 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040B38: 
BUILD_JAVAX=C:\java\jikes-1.17\bin\jikes.exe
  1113789 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040B70: 
CLASSPATH=.;D:\home\canning\lib\java;D:\devel\jedi\export\java;D:\devel\jedi\export\jars\bw_thirdparty.jar
  1043893 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040BE0: COLORFGBG=0;default;15
  1023995 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040C00: COLORTERM=rxvt-xpm
  1044099 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040C18: 
COMMONPROGRAMFILES=C:\Program Files\Common Files
  1034202 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040C50: COMPUTERNAME=CANNING-SV
  1034305 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040C70: 
COMSPEC=C:\WINNT\system32\cmd.exe
  1034408 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040C98: 
CVSROOT=:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/repos/cvs
  1044512 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040CD8: DISPLAY=:0
  1024614 [main] mkpasswd 1148 environ_init: 0xA040CE8: EXPDIR=

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 04:59:57PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> If you are a nontechnical cygwin user, then why would you be making
> any determination of what is harmless or not harmless?  I would think
> that it would be the reverse -- people who really know what they're
> doing (or think they know what they're doing) would be untarring.

Then the problem may be due to nontechnical people thinking they know
what they're doing.  ;-)

> >I suspect people aren't reading the notes near the bottom of
> >http://www.cygwin.com/download.html, or if they are, they don't believe
> >what they read, notably the "Installing Cygwin using this method [untar]
> >is not recommended." bit, because there's no explanation as to why
> >it's not recommended.
> 
> Again, if you're nontechnical why would you draw the conclusion "They didn't
> tell me why, so it must be ok"?  And, even if you did come to that conclusion,
> wouldn't it make sense to *try* setup.exe when the download/untar combination
> obviously doesn't work?

There may be some sort of "it worked once with package XYZ, so it should
work with package ABC too" mentality going on.

> That's a viable theory.  This could well be.  However, it doesn't explain
> an increase in this behavior unless cygwin has just become more popular
> and the 1% of people who decide not to use setup.exe have just become
> 1% of a larger number.

Quite likely.

> >Then there are the numerous issues with the UI of the Setup program
> >itself which no doubt dissuade people from using it.
> 
> I suppose so, but, again, it seems like many people *recently* are unaware
> of the setup program entirely.

So what are these people using to extract the package contents?  AFAIK
WinZip doesn't support bzip2, so something tells me they must've used
Setup at least once just to install Cygwin's bzip2 package, unless they
went to a bit of effort to find a non-Cygwin bzip2 decompressor, then
open the .tar with WinZip.

Hmm, actually, the first hit for bzip2 on Google leads to
http://sources.redhat.com/bzip2/ where there is a non-Cygwin Win32 version
of bzip2 just a page down, which I find is a little ironic, but probably
little more than coincidence.  :-)

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 08:23, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >  Or have
> >web crawlers changed such that this doesn't work anymore? 
> 
> I'll try that.  Thanks.

I wouldn't: google actively lowers your page ranking when it sees such
garbage.

Rob 
-- 
GPG key available at: .



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 08:31, andrew clarke wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 03:45:37PM +, John M. Adams wrote:
> 
> > How do you get just 1 package via setup.exe?
...
> So, to install a single package you will want to mark everything you
> already have installed as Keep, and everything else as Skip, then choose
> the version of the package you want to install.  Setup will re-add any
> dependencies, if required.

There is an easier way..
click on on the button that starts out as 'Categories' until it shows
partial. Then set all those packages to 'keep' if you don't want to
upgrade them.

Now click on partial to get back to categories, browse for your package,
and then click it's version to select the one you want.

Bingo.

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 08:59, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> I suppose so, but, again, it seems like many people *recently* are unaware
> of the setup program entirely.

Hmm, I think we should add a new screen to setup.exe.

After the install completes..

"Your cygwin install is now ready to use. Please run setup.exe again if
you want to Install new packages, Remove installed packages, or Update
your install with the latest versions of your installed packages."

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

How to convert unicode to Big5 using iconv

2003-02-14 Thread jklcom


Can someone show me some examples on how to use iconv_open and iconv to
do conversion between unicode and big5?

Thank you
-Jeff


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 09:28, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> 
> You know, I almost mentioned that but I think that someone (Robert
> Collins maybe?) may have suggested this previously and I adamantly
> intoned that these were ".tar.bz2 files dammit".

We had a long thread on cygwin-apps about this ~ 18 months back. It's
the work of minutes to allow setup to install .cyg files - the encoding
(gzip or bzip2) will be autodetected. I'm happy to ensure that this is
in the next release.

> However, changing the extension would go some way towards alleviating
> this problem and it would open the door to creating different package
> formats, identifiable by magic number.

We already have that (magic number support in setup). There was a
contributed patch that we discussed the architecture of on cygwin-apps,
eventually I wrote a similar thing using that patch for inspiration /
information.

> I was also thinking of creating a '/dev/tty' file in the archive which
> was just a real file containing the words "Hey! What are YOU DOING???" I
> think that would cause a tar extraction to print that message to the
> screen.  Don't know what it would do to setup.exe, though.

probably create c:/cygwin/dev/tty...

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: .

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 05:31:05PM -0500, Rolf Campbell wrote:
>Well, I maintain an internal mirror for my company, and I use a custom
>python script to parse our custom setup.ini and fetch the needed packages.
>But, I never used sources.redhat.com.

So, translation: "I have no insight into the problem but I thought I'd
send email anyway."

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

2003-02-14 Thread Rolf Campbell

Well, I maintain an internal mirror for my company, and I use a custom
python script to parse our custom setup.ini and fetch the needed packages.
But, I never used sources.redhat.com.

"Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I tried an experiment recently where I turned on ftp access to the
> cygwin download directory on sources.redhat.com.  The result seemed
> to be that people started downloading cygwin's package .tar.bz2 files
> directly and (somehow) used tar to extract files rather than running
> setup.exe.
>
> So, that experiment was a bad idea.  I turned off access again.  Yet, I
> still have the feeling that many people are downloading packages
> directly (from mirrors I suppose) and then we get to experience the
> maddening "I downloaded foo and it gives me an error about missing bar.
> What in the world could possibly be the problem"
>
> Can anyone offer any explanation about this?  Or maybe convince me that
> I'm wrong in noticing this trend?  I suppose that it is possible that
> we are now hitting a newer stupider brand of user who just can't be
> bothered to read the cygwin web site and click on a link to download
> but I'm wondering if there is another explanation.  Maybe there is
> a popular web page out there with wrong advice or something...
>
> cgf
> --
> 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
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 02:21:18PM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
>Chris,
>
>At 13:59 2003-02-14, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:50:48AM +1100, andrew clarke wrote:
>>>On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 01:26:15PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>
 ...
>>>
>>>If I may, speaking on behalf of some of the less-technical Cygwin users,
>>>some points:
>>>
>>>Obviously for simple .tar.bz2 files without any dependencies or post-
>>>install scripts, etc, untarring would appear to users to be a harmless
>>>thing to do.
>
>Maybe a new naming convention might serve to deter the naive: 
>PackageName-versionOrDateTag.car ("Cygwin ARchive"). It would still be 
>a BZip2-compressed TAR file, just as Java's ".jar" files are PKZIP 
>files under a different name (and with some extra content structuring 
>conventions).

You know, I almost mentioned that but I think that someone (Robert
Collins maybe?) may have suggested this previously and I adamantly
intoned that these were ".tar.bz2 files dammit".

However, changing the extension would go some way towards alleviating
this problem and it would open the door to creating different package
formats, identifiable by magic number.

I was also thinking of creating a '/dev/tty' file in the archive which
was just a real file containing the words "Hey! What are YOU DOING???" I
think that would cause a tar extraction to print that message to the
screen.  Don't know what it would do to setup.exe, though.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

Chris,

At 13:59 2003-02-14, Christopher Faylor wrote:

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:50:48AM +1100, andrew clarke wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 01:26:15PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> ...
>
>If I may, speaking on behalf of some of the less-technical Cygwin users,
>some points:
>
>Obviously for simple .tar.bz2 files without any dependencies or post-
>install scripts, etc, untarring would appear to users to be a harmless
>thing to do.

Maybe a new naming convention might serve to deter the naive: 
PackageName-versionOrDateTag.car ("Cygwin ARchive"). It would still be 
a BZip2-compressed TAR file, just as Java's ".jar" files are PKZIP 
files under a different name (and with some extra content structuring 
conventions).

While the uninitiated will think these files are something special and 
unique to Cygwin's installer, they will still be amenable to processing 
using the usual tools and all the same code will continue to work as it 
did before (with the possible exception of a minor change to Setup to 
know what ".car" means).

I make this suggestion about 50/50 serious / tongue-in-cheek.

If you are a nontechnical cygwin user, then why would you be making
any determination of what is harmless or not harmless?  I would think
that it would be the reverse -- people who really know what they're
doing (or think they know what they're doing) would be untarring.

>I suspect people aren't reading the notes near the bottom of
>http://www.cygwin.com/download.html, or if they are, they don't believe
>what they read, notably the "Installing Cygwin using this method [untar]
>is not recommended." bit, because there's no explanation as to why
>it's not recommended.

...

cgf

Randall Schulz 

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:50:48AM +1100, andrew clarke wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 01:26:15PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> I tried an experiment recently where I turned on ftp access to the
>> cygwin download directory on sources.redhat.com.  The result seemed
>> to be that people started downloading cygwin's package .tar.bz2 files
>> directly and (somehow) used tar to extract files rather than running
>> setup.exe.
>
>If I may, speaking on behalf of some of the less-technical Cygwin users,
>some points:
>
>Obviously for simple .tar.bz2 files without any dependencies or post-
>install scripts, etc, untarring would appear to users to be a harmless
>thing to do.

If you are a nontechnical cygwin user, then why would you be making
any determination of what is harmless or not harmless?  I would think
that it would be the reverse -- people who really know what they're
doing (or think they know what they're doing) would be untarring.

>I suspect people aren't reading the notes near the bottom of
>http://www.cygwin.com/download.html, or if they are, they don't believe
>what they read, notably the "Installing Cygwin using this method [untar]
>is not recommended." bit, because there's no explanation as to why
>it's not recommended.

Again, if you're nontechnical why would you draw the conclusion "They didn't
tell me why, so it must be ok"?  And, even if you did come to that conclusion,
wouldn't it make sense to *try* setup.exe when the download/untar combination
obviously doesn't work?

>Section 2 of the FAQ might also put people off using Setup because it's
>described as a "work-in-progress" and seemingly a bit of a moving target.

Sorry, but you're assuming a lot of stuff here that doesn't make sense to
me.

I see no indication that anyone is reading documentation and coming to
this kind of conclusion.  It seems more like they are bypassing the web
page entirely for some reason.

>Also, it may be that Setup is failing (eg. aborted downloads) for one
>reason or another, for more people than you think, so people are resorting
>to using Wget, or their browser, or something.

That's a viable theory.  This could well be.  However, it doesn't explain
an increase in this behavior unless cygwin has just become more popular
and the 1% of people who decide not to use setup.exe have just become
1% of a larger number.

>Then there are the numerous issues with the UI of the Setup program
>itself which no doubt dissuade people from using it.

I suppose so, but, again, it seems like many people *recently* are unaware
of the setup program entirely.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 03:45:37PM +, John M. Adams wrote:

> How do you get just 1 package via setup.exe?

When you reach the Select Packages dialog of setup.exe, hit the View
button (the tiny one on the upper-right...).  In the table there is a
column called "New" (I don't know why it's called that).  If you click
on the "cycle glyph" (that's what the FAQ calls it!), or just next to
it in the New column, for a package, you change what Setup will do with
that package.  For packages not already installed you can either Skip
the package, or choose the version you want to install (occasionally
you will have multiple versions of a package to choose from).  Already-
installed packages will be listed as "Keep" unless a newer version is
available.

So, to install a single package you will want to mark everything you
already have installed as Keep, and everything else as Skip, then choose
the version of the package you want to install.  Setup will re-add any
dependencies, if required.

Unfortunately, if you just want to install a single package, and newer
versions of other packages that you already have installed have been
released, it's cumbersome to tell Setup not to upgrade those other
packages (ie. mark them all as Keep), because you have to scroll through
the entire list looking for version numbers of those other packages, so
you can set them all to Keep.

Phew.

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 12:15:05PM -0800, Peter A. Castro wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 07:55:57PM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 06:39:47PM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
>> >> >Well, Gary (Gary R. Van Sickle) is the maintainer of that page, so
>> >>
>> >> Ack.  I missed that fact.
>> >>
>> >> Don't send Gary email about this!  I'm sure he doesn't need it.
>> >
>> >Ops! Too late! ;-) Only kiddin' I'm sure that's not a worry. Perhaps
>> >changing
>> >
>> >"Run this program any time you want to install a cygwin package."
>> >
>> >to
>> >
>> >"It is recommended that you use setup.exe whenever you want to install a
>> >cygwin package. If you install or update packages manually, you are doing so
>> >at your own risk."
>> >
>> >at the end of the third paragraph below "What's New and How Do I Get It?"...
>> 
>> I don't think people are actually reading that paragraph at all, though.  I
>> think that's part of the problem.
>
>As a preventative measure, how about adding some embedded tags into the
>cygwin.com home or install pages so that they'll have a higher hit-point
>ratio for various search combinations.  Something like adding:
>
>
>
>The next time the various web crawlers inspect the page they might give a
>larger weight to this page for the various word combinations.  Or have
>web crawlers changed such that this doesn't work anymore? 

I'll try that.  Thanks.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Bash shell

Thorsten,

At 13:01 2003-02-14, Thorsten Kampe wrote:

* Randall R Schulz (03-02-14 18:28 +0100)
> I think we're really getting the tag-team meanness down to a fine art,
> aren't we?
>
> Or is it "good cop / bad cop?"

I don't see your point.

I stated that there is no Linux nor Cygwin nor Windows nor BSD bash.
It's just GNU bash and if you have a "how do I 'foo' in bash"
question, it's almost definitely not Cygwin related.

I don't understand how someone who's "not new to Linux" could think
that copy and paste is a shell thing. It isn't "in Linux".

Copying and pasting in Windows Cmd/Command is basic Windows knowledge.
If you're using "cygwin.bat", it even looks like a simple "DOS
window".

For rxvt it's in the man page: "TEXT SELECTION AND INSERTION".

Sorry, I don't see your point.

Clearly.

It wasn't about the question or the answer, but rather about how 
different respondents say RTFM or "that's OT" while others cordially 
supply the answers and how the various roles in dealing with these 
tired old questions are traded around among the regulars and old-timers 
on the list.

Thorsten

Randall Schulz 

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

andrew clarke wrote:

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:50:48AM +1100, andrew clarke wrote:



Section 2 of the FAQ might also put people off using Setup because it's
described as a "work-in-progress" and seemingly a bit of a moving target.



Actually, just out of interest, will new Setup programs always be
backward-compatible (within reason) with packages designed for old
versions of Setup?  The point being, a user should expect to be
able to install an old .tar.bz2 file from a local directory using
the latest version of Setup.  If not, it should be recommended that
users keep their old version of setup.exe (and not just overwrite
it with the newest setup.exe) because the new version may not be able
to install packages designed for the old version, because it's a
work-in-progress.

"Expect features and functionality to change."

Unless the FAQ is inaccurate!



There are no plans to change the format of the packages.  I can't foresee
a need to ever do this.  Don't worry about such things unless you've
been given explicit need to do so.  It will give you ulcers! ;-)



--08:06:16--  http://cygwin.com/setup.exe

 4 Last-Modified: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 00:50:47 GMT

Hmm, nobody is working on it after all?



The new version of setup is being actively worked on.  Need proof?
Check out the cygwin-apps email archive.  There's been lots of work
since 7/4/2002.  It makes for good reading if this is the kind of
information you crave.


--
Larry Hall  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFK Partners, Inc.  http://www.rfk.com
838 Washington Street   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

2003-02-14 Thread Max Bowsher

andrew clarke wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:50:48AM +1100, andrew clarke wrote:
>
>> Section 2 of the FAQ might also put people off using Setup because
>> it's described as a "work-in-progress" and seemingly a bit of a
>> moving target.
>
> Actually, just out of interest, will new Setup programs always be
> backward-compatible (within reason) with packages designed for old
> versions of Setup?  The point being, a user should expect to be
> able to install an old .tar.bz2 file from a local directory using
> the latest version of Setup.  If not, it should be recommended that
> users keep their old version of setup.exe (and not just overwrite
> it with the newest setup.exe) because the new version may not be able
> to install packages designed for the old version, because it's a
> work-in-progress.

The package format has never broken compatibility yet, and I don't think it
ever will.

> --08:06:16--  http://cygwin.com/setup.exe
>
>  4 Last-Modified: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 00:50:47 GMT
>
> Hmm, nobody is working on it after all?

Oh, lots of work has been going on, but all in CVS.


Max.


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Problem with accept(2) on the 1003.20.0.0 release

> Cheers to Elfyn!
>
>
> > Do you by any chance have any firewall software running on the
daemon'ish
> > machine? ZoneAlaram perhaps?
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Elfyn McBratney
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > www.exposure.org.uk
>
> I had version 3.21 of Aventail's connect SW installed on the problem
machine. I removed it, reinstalled the lastest cygwin, tested!, re-installed
version 4.1.2 of Avantail, tested again, and now all is well...
>
> Accept(2) now works as expected with this version of Aventail...
>
> If anyone has a clue as to what was going wrong, I'd love to know.
Remember, the problem only occurred with the latest cygwin and this older
version of Avantail. The same code compiled with Visual Studio always ran
fine. So, there is some interaction between cygwin1.dll and Aventail...

It may be, well I know NIS and ZoneAlarm do it, that some firewall software
install their own versions of winsock and maybe other dll's so they can
enhance their firewall code and intrusion detection. Don't know what
Aventail is but it may have done the same. Maybe just something else...but
who knows :-)


Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.exposure.org.uk



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Problem with accept(2) on the 1003.20.0.0 release

2003-02-14 Thread jeff_burch

Cheers to Elfyn!


> Do you by any chance have any firewall software running on the daemon'ish
> machine? ZoneAlaram perhaps?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Elfyn McBratney
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.exposure.org.uk

I had version 3.21 of Aventail's connect SW installed on the problem machine. I 
removed it, reinstalled the lastest cygwin, tested!, re-installed version 4.1.2 of 
Avantail, tested again, and now all is well...

Accept(2) now works as expected with this version of Aventail...

If anyone has a clue as to what was going wrong, I'd love to know. Remember, the 
problem only occurred with the latest cygwin and this older version of Avantail. The 
same code compiled with Visual Studio always ran fine. So, there is some interaction 
between cygwin1.dll and Aventail...

Thanks, Jeff

Jeff Burch
Communications Solutions Department
Agilent Laboratories
Phone: 650-485-6364
Fax: 650-485-8092
email:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

> Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I tried an experiment recently where I turned on ftp access to the
> > cygwin download directory on sources.redhat.com.  The result seemed
> > to be that people started downloading cygwin's package .tar.bz2 files
> > directly and (somehow) used tar to extract files rather than running
> > setup.exe.
>
> > Can anyone offer any explanation about this?
>
> Well, I've never tried to install via anything but the setup.exe.
> However, it is not obvious to me how to just get a single package that
> way.  The last few times I tried to do that, I ended up getting a
> massive amount of stuff.  Maybe some of your ftp users are similarly
> confused.

Setyp.exe installs all of the packages in the Base category. So when you
install everything from that category get's installed. When you have a mass
of packages installed, like me with everything, setup checks to see if those
packages have been updated on your mirror and if so marks them as Install.

> How do you get just 1 package via setup.exe?

Just click on it until it (the package) is set to Install. If you have a lot
of packages where updates are available they will be set to install so you
will need to cycle through the packages you don't want to upgrade until it
says Keep. I believe there is quite a few updated features in CVS for
setup.exe so there's probably a new easier way of doing it.

Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.exposure.org.uk

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:50:48AM +1100, andrew clarke wrote:

> Section 2 of the FAQ might also put people off using Setup because it's
> described as a "work-in-progress" and seemingly a bit of a moving target.

Actually, just out of interest, will new Setup programs always be
backward-compatible (within reason) with packages designed for old
versions of Setup?  The point being, a user should expect to be
able to install an old .tar.bz2 file from a local directory using
the latest version of Setup.  If not, it should be recommended that
users keep their old version of setup.exe (and not just overwrite
it with the newest setup.exe) because the new version may not be able
to install packages designed for the old version, because it's a
work-in-progress.

"Expect features and functionality to change."

Unless the FAQ is inaccurate!

--08:06:16--  http://cygwin.com/setup.exe

 4 Last-Modified: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 00:50:47 GMT

Hmm, nobody is working on it after all?

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Bash shell

* Randall R Schulz (03-02-14 18:28 +0100)
> I think we're really getting the tag-team meanness down to a fine art, 
> aren't we?
> 
> Or is it "good cop / bad cop?"

I don't see your point.

I stated that there is no Linux nor Cygwin nor Windows nor BSD bash. 
It's just GNU bash and if you have a "how do I 'foo' in bash" 
question, it's almost definitely not Cygwin related.

I don't understand how someone who's "not new to Linux" could think 
that copy and paste is a shell thing. It isn't "in Linux".

Copying and pasting in Windows Cmd/Command is basic Windows knowledge. 
If you're using "cygwin.bat", it even looks like a simple "DOS 
window".

For rxvt it's in the man page: "TEXT SELECTION AND INSERTION".

Sorry, I don't see your point.


Thorsten
-- 
 Content-Type: text/explicit; charset=ISO-8859-666 (Parental Advisory)
 Content-Transfer-Warning: message contains innuendos not suited for
 children under the age of 18


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 12:15:05PM -0800, Peter A. Castro wrote:

> > I don't think people are actually reading that paragraph at all, though.  I
> > think that's part of the problem.
> 
> As a preventative measure, how about adding some embedded tags into the
> cygwin.com home or install pages so that they'll have a higher hit-point
> ratio for various search combinations.  Something like adding:
> 
>

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 01:26:15PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> I tried an experiment recently where I turned on ftp access to the
> cygwin download directory on sources.redhat.com.  The result seemed
> to be that people started downloading cygwin's package .tar.bz2 files
> directly and (somehow) used tar to extract files rather than running
> setup.exe.

If I may, speaking on behalf of some of the less-technical Cygwin users,
some points:

Obviously for simple .tar.bz2 files without any dependencies or post-
install scripts, etc, untarring would appear to users to be a harmless
thing to do.

I suspect people aren't reading the notes near the bottom of
http://www.cygwin.com/download.html, or if they are, they don't believe
what they read, notably the "Installing Cygwin using this method [untar]
is not recommended." bit, because there's no explanation as to why
it's not recommended.

Section 2 of the FAQ might also put people off using Setup because it's
described as a "work-in-progress" and seemingly a bit of a moving target.

Also, people may be put off by the fact that there's no recommended
way (to my knowledge) to install Cygwin packages from the command-line,
(a la "apt-get", "pkg_add", "rpm -i", etc).

Also, it may be that Setup is failing (eg. aborted downloads) for one
reason or another, for more people than you think, so people are resorting
to using Wget, or their browser, or something.

Then there are the numerous issues with the UI of the Setup program
itself which no doubt dissuade people from using it.

All these things combined can't really help much.

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

2003-02-14 Thread John M. Adams

Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I tried an experiment recently where I turned on ftp access to the
> cygwin download directory on sources.redhat.com.  The result seemed
> to be that people started downloading cygwin's package .tar.bz2 files
> directly and (somehow) used tar to extract files rather than running
> setup.exe.

> Can anyone offer any explanation about this?

Well, I've never tried to install via anything but the setup.exe.
However, it is not obvious to me how to just get a single package that
way.  The last few times I tried to do that, I ended up getting a
massive amount of stuff.  Maybe some of your ftp users are similarly
confused.

How do you get just 1 package via setup.exe?

-- 
John M. Adams

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Bash shell

> Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> >>Randall R Schulz wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hello, Fellow Curmudgeons,
> >>>
> >>>I think we're really getting the tag-team meanness down to a fine art,
> >>>aren't we?
> >>>
> >>>Or is it "good cop / bad cop?"
> >>>
> >>>It has recently come to my attention that some people think the Cygwin
> >>>list is exceptionally unfriendly to the uninitiated. Of course, I'd
just
> >>>like to think we hold a higher standard.
> >>
> >>
> >>Here, here! :-)  I should point out that there are all kinds of opinions
> >>out there.  While some might feel this list is unfriendly, others think
> >>the reverse is the case.  I just had some email today from someone new
> >>who posted to the list and wanted to send my response onto other lists
> >>as an example of a "professional" response.  I'm sure the fact that this
> >>person chose my response is completely coincidental.  There are
certainly
> >>lots of examples of great, friendly help from this list.  I see it
> >>everyday.
> >
> >
> > Well, I try ;-)
>
>
> Well, I'd say you do more than that!  I expect others would agree.
> I thank you for your help!


Thanks! That means a lot. How do you capitalise a smiley :-)


Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.exposure.org.uk



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: bash shell

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:





[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 02/14/2003 03:14:39 PM

To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:(bcc: Fred Smith/Computrition)
Subject:  cygwin Digest 14 Feb 2003 20:14:39 - Issue 2563





It has recently come to my attention that some people think the Cygwin
list is exceptionally unfriendly to the uninitiated. Of course, I'd


just


like to think we hold a higher standard.



Here, here! :-)  I should point out that there are all kinds of opinions



to keep up with the meanies on the list, I feel compelled to point out that
perhaps you MEANT to say: "Hear, Hear!"

;^}


Yikes!  If you weren't so mean, I'd say I was embarassed by my slip! ;-)


Larry Hall  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFK Partners, Inc.  http://www.rfk.com
838 Washington Street   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: cron - Error starting a service: QueryServiceStatus: Win32 error 1062:

2003-02-14 Thread Harig, Mark A.

Yes, that's unusual.  I think I'll leave out a check for this problem at
this time.  I wonder if anyone knows of a general purpose tool for
checking the validity or sanity of the /etc/group and /etc/passwd files?

Have you tried adding 'SYSTEM' to group 544 via the /etc/group file?

> -Original Message-
> From: House, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 11:25 AM
> To: Harig, Mark A.; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: cron - Error starting a service: 
> QueryServiceStatus: Win32
> error 1062:
> 
> 
> Mark,
> 
>  Thanks for responding to this.
> 
>  I found the problem. Apparently, I had tried to add the 
> SYSTEM account to a second group. So, that in my /etc/passwd 
> file it looked like  SYSTEM:*:18:18,544:,S-1-5-18::/bin/bash
> 
>  This caused the problem. I went and removed that ,544 and my 
> cron service has started up.
> 
>   Perhaps adding a check on the proper SYSTEM account in 
> /etc/passwd to cron_diagnose.sh may be appropriate. Although, 
> I'm not too sure that anyone else will do anything quite this strange.
> 
> Thanks,
>   Mark
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Harig, Mark A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 6:48 PM
> To: House, Mark; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: cron - Error starting a service: 
> QueryServiceStatus: Win32
> error 1062:
> 
> 
> I can't see any glaring errors.  Here a some things you might try:
>  
> 1. You're running Windows 2000, SP2.  Is there any reason you haven't
> installed SP3?
> I doubt that this has any effect, but it might be worth trying.
>  
> 2. You have Windows 2000 installed on your 'c:' drive, but Cygwin is
> installed
> on your 'd:' drive.  You might try installing a minimal Cygwin on
> your 'c:'
> drive, and retrying cron.  Have you been running Cygwin 
> on 'd:' all
> along?
>  
> If you find a fix that you think could be detected by the
> cron_diagnose.sh
> script, please let me know so that it can improve.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: House, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 10:45 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: cron - Error starting a service: QueryServiceStatus: Win32
> error 1062:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, 
> 
>   I have been experiencing this error ever since I rebooted 
> my server. I
> am now unable to start the cron service. I have attached my cygcheck
> file and I have run cron_diagnose.sh as suggested by Mark A. Harig on
> his posting on 20-Dec-2002.
> 
>  In addition, I have uninstalled and reinstalled the cron 
> service and I
> have reinstalled the cron and cygrunsrv components.
> 
>  I am using Win2000 Server. My Event Log displays the 
> following error. 
>   The following information is part of the event: cron : Win32
> Process Id = 0x9A0 : Cygwin Process Id = 0x9A0 : starting 
> service `cron'
> failed: execv: 1, Operation not permitted.
> 
> I would appreciate any suggestions that you can offer. 
> 
> Thanks, 
>   Mark 
> 
> <> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Bash shell

Elfyn McBratney wrote:

Randall R Schulz wrote:


Hello, Fellow Curmudgeons,

I think we're really getting the tag-team meanness down to a fine art,
aren't we?

Or is it "good cop / bad cop?"

It has recently come to my attention that some people think the Cygwin
list is exceptionally unfriendly to the uninitiated. Of course, I'd just
like to think we hold a higher standard.



Here, here! :-)  I should point out that there are all kinds of opinions
out there.  While some might feel this list is unfriendly, others think
the reverse is the case.  I just had some email today from someone new
who posted to the list and wanted to send my response onto other lists
as an example of a "professional" response.  I'm sure the fact that this
person chose my response is completely coincidental.  There are certainly
lots of examples of great, friendly help from this list.  I see it
everyday.



Well, I try ;-)



Well, I'd say you do more than that!  I expect others would agree.
I thank you for your help!



--
Larry Hall  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFK Partners, Inc.  http://www.rfk.com
838 Washington Street   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: The humble and other editing keys

* Elfyn McBratney (03-02-14 19:52 +0100)
> One thing that I forgot: Bash does have a system-wide inputrc but you have
> to define an environment variable to the location of the file, INPUTRC
> 
> export INPUTRC=/etc/inputrc

bash doesn't have a "system-wide inputrc" (although you /could/ make 
one that way). The only file mentioned in the man page is ~/.inputrc.

If you set the environment variable INPUTRC to /etc/inputrc, 
~/.inputrc won't be parsed.

You can include any file with "$include". So if /etc/inputrc exists, 
you may want to source it with...

,--- * .bashrc
| # Make *my* settings work (despite of any "export INPUTRC=" in
| # /etc/profile)
| 
| unset INPUTRC
`---

,--- * ~/.inputrc
| # But only my settings where opposed to /etc/inputrc
| $include /etc/inputrc
| 
| "\e[3~":  delete-char
| 
| # etc., etc.
`---

or...

,--- * /etc/profile
| export INPUTRC=/etc/inputrc
`---

,--- * /etc/inputrc
| "\e[3~":  delete-char
|
| $include ~/.inputrc
`---


Thorsten
-- 
 Content-Type: text/explicit; charset=ISO-8859-666 (Parental Advisory)
 Content-Transfer-Warning: message contains innuendos not suited for
 children under the age of 18


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

2003-02-14 Thread Peter A. Castro

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 07:55:57PM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 06:39:47PM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> >> >Well, Gary (Gary R. Van Sickle) is the maintainer of that page, so
> >>
> >> Ack.  I missed that fact.
> >>
> >> Don't send Gary email about this!  I'm sure he doesn't need it.
> >
> >Ops! Too late! ;-) Only kiddin' I'm sure that's not a worry. Perhaps
> >changing
> >
> >"Run this program any time you want to install a cygwin package."
> >
> >to
> >
> >"It is recommended that you use setup.exe whenever you want to install a
> >cygwin package. If you install or update packages manually, you are doing so
> >at your own risk."
> >
> >at the end of the third paragraph below "What's New and How Do I Get It?"...
> 
> I don't think people are actually reading that paragraph at all, though.  I
> think that's part of the problem.

As a preventative measure, how about adding some embedded tags into the
cygwin.com home or install pages so that they'll have a higher hit-point
ratio for various search combinations.  Something like adding:



The next time the various web crawlers inspect the page they might give a
larger weight to this page for the various word combinations.  Or have
web crawlers changed such that this doesn't work anymore? 

> cgf

-- 
Peter A. Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: bash shell

2003-02-14 Thread Fred_Smith






[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 02/14/2003 03:14:39 PM

To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:(bcc: Fred Smith/Computrition)
Subject:  cygwin Digest 14 Feb 2003 20:14:39 - Issue 2563



> > It has recently come to my attention that some people think the Cygwin
> > list is exceptionally unfriendly to the uninitiated. Of course, I'd
just
> > like to think we hold a higher standard.
>
>
> Here, here! :-)  I should point out that there are all kinds of opinions

to keep up with the meanies on the list, I feel compelled to point out that
perhaps you MEANT to say: "Hear, Hear!"

;^}








--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Bash shell

> Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > Hello, Fellow Curmudgeons,
> >
> > I think we're really getting the tag-team meanness down to a fine art,
> > aren't we?
> >
> > Or is it "good cop / bad cop?"
> >
> > It has recently come to my attention that some people think the Cygwin
> > list is exceptionally unfriendly to the uninitiated. Of course, I'd just
> > like to think we hold a higher standard.
>
>
> Here, here! :-)  I should point out that there are all kinds of opinions
> out there.  While some might feel this list is unfriendly, others think
> the reverse is the case.  I just had some email today from someone new
> who posted to the list and wanted to send my response onto other lists
> as an example of a "professional" response.  I'm sure the fact that this
> person chose my response is completely coincidental.  There are certainly
> lots of examples of great, friendly help from this list.  I see it
> everyday.

Well, I try ;-)

> I don't want to start a flame war on this subject but I just thought this
> was an opportunity for me to pass on some positive feedback to all those
> who take some of their own time to provide support to this community.

I think that's the exact way of putting it. Most people here help out
voluntarily. My style lacks and most of the time I hit the send button
rather quickly but I try and help because a year or so ago I was asking the
same kinda questions that could have been found in the archives, user's
guide or faq.

I've been on other lists where all you woulda got was a "wtf?" response
which is a little on the rude side for new users. Don't see many of those
here tho...


Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.exposure.org.uk



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 07:55:57PM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 06:39:47PM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> >> >Well, Gary (Gary R. Van Sickle) is the maintainer of that page, so
> >>
> >> Ack.  I missed that fact.
> >>
> >> Don't send Gary email about this!  I'm sure he doesn't need it.
> >
> >Ops! Too late! ;-) Only kiddin' I'm sure that's not a worry. Perhaps
> >changing
> >
> >"Run this program any time you want to install a cygwin package."
> >
> >to
> >
> >"It is recommended that you use setup.exe whenever you want to install a
> >cygwin package. If you install or update packages manually, you are doing
so
> >at your own risk."
> >
> >at the end of the third paragraph below "What's New and How Do I Get
It?"...
>
> I don't think people are actually reading that paragraph at all, though.
I
> think that's part of the problem.

Then there's not much you can do. If user's don't read these informative
pieces of information, that would cut down the superfluous "bug" reports,
then the easiest thing to me would be to send a reply of "Read blah...".
They'll, *hopefully*, get the message.

Sorry I just noticed something I sent 20 minutes ago has got through even
though I got an "supposed" SMTP error...Br


Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.exposure.org.uk



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: The humble and other editing keys

Lee,

We don't approve of all that humor hereabouts.


This one _is_ documented in the BASH manual page. Here's the binding I use:

"\M-[3~":   delete-char # Delete

When you find this Readline action in the BASH manual page, you'll find 
all the other goodies you can program into BASH's handling of 
interactive input.


I'll also offer the hint that not all terminal emulators send the same 
sequence for a given key, but in this case both of the two common ones 
for Cygwin users, the console (character subsystem windows as presented 
by Cygwin) and RXVT generate the same sequence.


Randall Schulz

P.S. Thank you for leading me to a new word.


At 09:44 2003-02-14, Lee D. Rothstein wrote:
Since at least 1979, when I started using Warren Montgomery's
Emacs on System III UNIX, I have been annoyed with DEC's and
RMS's treatment of the  (or  key as they called
it. In those days, I "reconfigured" my keyboard to fix this
abortion.

I want  to do what any self-respecting  should do,
namely delete the character at the cursor.

Anyone know how to do this with Cygwin command line editing?

Anyway, to get  or  to
move a word at a time?

I am willing to accept RMS as my god, minus this one hamartia.
;-) Help.

Lest I forget:

To all the Cygwin developers out there:

- Thank you.
- Outstanding work.
- If you can "fix" Windoze, is there anything you can do about
  the weather? ;-|)

Thanks!

Lee



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Bash shell

Randall R Schulz wrote:

Hello, Fellow Curmudgeons,

I think we're really getting the tag-team meanness down to a fine art, 
aren't we?

Or is it "good cop / bad cop?"

It has recently come to my attention that some people think the Cygwin 
list is exceptionally unfriendly to the uninitiated. Of course, I'd just 
like to think we hold a higher standard.


Here, here! :-)  I should point out that there are all kinds of opinions
out there.  While some might feel this list is unfriendly, others think
the reverse is the case.  I just had some email today from someone new
who posted to the list and wanted to send my response onto other lists
as an example of a "professional" response.  I'm sure the fact that this
person chose my response is completely coincidental.  There are certainly
lots of examples of great, friendly help from this list.  I see it
everyday.

I don't want to start a flame war on this subject but I just thought this
was an opportunity for me to pass on some positive feedback to all those
who take some of their own time to provide support to this community.



--
Larry Hall  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFK Partners, Inc.  http://www.rfk.com
838 Washington Street   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 06:39:47PM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> >Well, Gary (Gary R. Van Sickle) is the maintainer of that page, so
>
> Ack.  I missed that fact.
>
> Don't send Gary email about this!  I'm sure he doesn't need it.

Ops! Too late! ;-) Only kiddin' I'm sure that's not a worry. Perhaps
changing

"Run this program any time you want to install a cygwin package."

to

"It is recommended that you use setup.exe whenever you want to install a
cygwin package. If you install or update packages manually, you are doing so
at your own risk."

at the end of the third paragraph below "What's New and How Do I Get It?"...

Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.exposure.org.uk

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 07:55:57PM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 06:39:47PM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
>> >Well, Gary (Gary R. Van Sickle) is the maintainer of that page, so
>>
>> Ack.  I missed that fact.
>>
>> Don't send Gary email about this!  I'm sure he doesn't need it.
>
>Ops! Too late! ;-) Only kiddin' I'm sure that's not a worry. Perhaps
>changing
>
>"Run this program any time you want to install a cygwin package."
>
>to
>
>"It is recommended that you use setup.exe whenever you want to install a
>cygwin package. If you install or update packages manually, you are doing so
>at your own risk."
>
>at the end of the third paragraph below "What's New and How Do I Get It?"...

I don't think people are actually reading that paragraph at all, though.  I
think that's part of the problem.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 06:39:47PM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> >Well, Gary (Gary R. Van Sickle) is the maintainer of that page, so
>
> Ack.  I missed that fact.
>
> Don't send Gary email about this!  I'm sure he doesn't need it.

Ops! Too late! ;-) Only kiddin' I'm sure that's not a worry. Perhaps
changing

"Run this program any time you want to install a cygwin package."

to

"It is recommended that you use setup.exe whenever you want to install a
cygwin package. If you install or update packages manually, you are doing so
at your own risk."

at the end of the third paragraph below "What's New and How Do I Get It?"...

Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.exposure.org.uk

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Zsh filename completion sluggishness?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 11:38:06AM -0700, Matt Armstrong wrote:
>Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 10:12:54AM -0700, Matt Armstrong wrote:
>>>In the Win32 world, quotes around path elements are valid.  If I have:
>>>
>>>PATH="c:\foo bar"
>>>
>>>cmd.exe will find executables in that dir.
>>>
>>>When I run bash or zsh, things in "c:\foo bar" aren't found.
>>
>> This is a UNIX emulation environment.  "c:\foo bar" doesn't mean the c drive
>> in a PATH variable.  It means the 'c' directory followed by the '\foo bar'
>> directory.  Colon is the separator for PATH.
>>
>> The correct syntax for the above is PATH="/cygdrive/c/foo bar" .
>
>I understand completely -- as I said somewhat ambiguously I was
>setting the path to "c:\foo bar" in cmd.exe, then running bash.
>
>When Cygwin initializes its PATH from the Win32 one, it doesn't handle
>quoted elements properly.
>
>E.g. cygwin converts the Win32 path like this:
>
>c:\foo;"c:\bar" -> /cygdrive/c/foo:"c:\bar"
>
>But it should do this:
>
>c:\foo;"c:\bar" -> /cygdrive/c/foo:/cygdrive/c/bar

Ah, sorry.  I see what you're saying now.

Yes, that's "arguably" a bug.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: The humble and other editing keys

> > * ~/.inputrc works. /etc/inputrc doesn't. Why?
>
> Aaaah my cockpit error :-) Bash only checks for the existence of the
> user's or individuals' readline initialisation file.
>
> > * Is there documentation for this? Specific to Cygwin? Or,
> >not necessary due to complete compatibility. Does
> >terminfo, play a role, here?
>
> Well I found this out ages ago when I first started playing with
bash/unix>
> I do have this in my bookmarks that might be of interest:
>
> 
>
> > * How does one go about writing documentation for Cygwin?
> >I'm interested.
>
> Erm...Well just write it! ;-) If you mean you want to write about the
> differences between vanilla UNIX and Cygwin then there's quite a bit in
the
> user's guide and the faq, both are linked on the main cygwin homepage
> (). Otherwise, not too sure. Take a look at the
> docs/howto's that come with cygwin packages in the /usr/doc/Cygwin
> directory.
>
> > * What are the names of the forward and backward word  keys
> >in 'bash', and how do I set them to  and
> >. (I have the environment variable,
> >'EDITOR', set to 'TextPad".)
>
> Do you mean you want to perform an action when you do a C+Right-Arrow?
That
> can be done in the ~/.inputrc file. You should be able to find out more in
> that link above.


One thing that I forgot: Bash does have a system-wide inputrc but you have
to define an environment variable to the location of the file, INPUTRC

export INPUTRC=/etc/inputrc


Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.exposure.org.uk



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: The humble and other editing keys

> * ~/.inputrc works. /etc/inputrc doesn't. Why?

Aaaah my cockpit error :-) Bash only checks for the existence of the
user's or individuals' readline initialisation file.

> * Is there documentation for this? Specific to Cygwin? Or,
>not necessary due to complete compatibility. Does
>terminfo, play a role, here?

Well I found this out ages ago when I first started playing with bash/unix>
I do have this in my bookmarks that might be of interest:



> * How does one go about writing documentation for Cygwin?
>I'm interested.

Erm...Well just write it! ;-) If you mean you want to write about the
differences between vanilla UNIX and Cygwin then there's quite a bit in the
user's guide and the faq, both are linked on the main cygwin homepage
(). Otherwise, not too sure. Take a look at the
docs/howto's that come with cygwin packages in the /usr/doc/Cygwin
directory.

> * What are the names of the forward and backward word  keys
>in 'bash', and how do I set them to  and
>. (I have the environment variable,
>'EDITOR', set to 'TextPad".)

Do you mean you want to perform an action when you do a C+Right-Arrow? That
can be done in the ~/.inputrc file. You should be able to find out more in
that link above.


Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.exposure.org.uk



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Bash shell

Hello, Fellow Curmudgeons,

I think we're really getting the tag-team meanness down to a fine art, 
aren't we?

Or is it "good cop / bad cop?"

It has recently come to my attention that some people think the Cygwin 
list is exceptionally unfriendly to the uninitiated. Of course, I'd 
just like to think we hold a higher standard.

RRS

At 09:12 2003-02-14, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
* Tom Dager (03-02-14 17:37 +0100)
> I am VERY new to Cygwin, though not to Linux.

bash has nothing to do with Linux, it's a GNU thing.

> I [...] was wondering how do I get it so that I can copy and paste 
something
> from a windows window [...] into the bash shell window.

This is a FAQ and has nothing to do with bash nor Cygwin: you can copy
and paste like in any other Cmd.exe/Command.com window.

If you're using rxvt (although this isn't Cygwin related, too):
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2001-09/msg00483.html

Thorsten

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 06:39:47PM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
>Well, Gary (Gary R. Van Sickle) is the maintainer of that page, so

Ack.  I missed that fact.

Don't send Gary email about this!  I'm sure he doesn't need it.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 01:34:59PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> I tried an experiment recently where I turned on ftp access to the
>> cygwin download directory on sources.redhat.com.  The result seemed
>> to be that people started downloading cygwin's package .tar.bz2 files
>> directly and (somehow) used tar to extract files rather than running
>> setup.exe.
>>
>> So, that experiment was a bad idea.  I turned off access again.  Yet, I
>> still have the feeling that many people are downloading packages
>> directly (from mirrors I suppose) and then we get to experience the
>> maddening "I downloaded foo and it gives me an error about missing bar.
>> What in the world could possibly be the problem"
>>
>> Can anyone offer any explanation about this?  Or maybe convince me that
>> I'm wrong in noticing this trend?  I suppose that it is possible that
>> we are now hitting a newer stupider brand of user who just can't be
>> bothered to read the cygwin web site and click on a link to download
>> but I'm wondering if there is another explanation.  Maybe there is
>> a popular web page out there with wrong advice or something...
>>
>> cgf
>
>Well, guess what comes up first on a Google search for "cygwin install"?
>See for yourself:  (just in
>case, the first match I get is ,
>last updated on March 24, 2000). :-(

This is interesting but it doesn't really explain the problem since the site
is so outdated.  sourceware.cygnus.com doesn't even exist anymore.

>I don't know if there's anything that can be done about it, though...

How about if every able-bodied cygwin-mailing-list person sends email to this
person and asks them to take the site down.

FWIW, I've recently sent email to Mumit Khan for similar reasons.  His
"ancient" gnu-win32 site still shows up in google and some of the
outdated techniques espoused there demonstrably cause confusion.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: The humble and other editing keys

2003-02-14 Thread Lee D. Rothstein

Elfyn,

Thanks.

See my comments and further questions, below.

At 2003-02-14 06:18 PM +, Elfyn McBratney wrote:

> I want  to do what any self-respecting 
> should do, namely delete the character at the cursor.

In bash you can add the following

# DEL key in bash
"\e[3~": delete-char

to your ~/.inputrc or your /etc/inputrc file to get
a functioning DEL key.

* ~/.inputrc works. /etc/inputrc doesn't. Why?
* Is there documentation for this? Specific to Cygwin? Or,
  not necessary due to complete compatibility. Does
  terminfo, play a role, here?
* How does one go about writing documentation for Cygwin?
  I'm interested.
* What are the names of the forward and backward word  keys
  in 'bash', and how do I set them to  and
  . (I have the environment variable,
  'EDITOR', set to 'TextPad".)

Lee D. Rothstein -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
VeriTech -- 603-424-2900
7 Merry Meeting Drive
Merrimack, NH 03054-2934

--

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Problem with accept(2) on the 1003.20.0.0 release

> Dear Tino and the rest of the Cygwin community,
>
> I made a post yesterday (2/13) on this problem and posted a testAccept.cpp
program. By the way, my new version of cygwin and g++ agreed perfectly with
Tino's response. Also, tests to use a specific "real" address in the bind( )
call didn't change the  problem behavior...
>
> As an experiment, I happened to have an old version of cygwin's install
package on a server and have move the problem machine back to the distant
past:
>
> uname -a
> CYGWIN_NT-5.0 SSLGROUPOB 1.3.3(0.46/3/2) 2001-09-12 23:54 i686 unknown
>
> g++ --version
> 2.95.3-5
>
> The testAccept.exe built on this version of Cygwin works perfectly. Also,
my testAccept.exe built on the lastest version of Cygwin runs perfectly on
this version of Cygwin. And one more "fun fact": I tweaked the program and
built it under Visual C++ and it runs perfectly.
>
> So, on my machine the new version of Cygwin has a problem! Accept(2) will
hang on the second call for the same socket. I wonder who else in the world
will have similar problem. Tino reports that he doesn't have any problems on
his machine...
>
> At this point, I don't know what else to try. I'm pretty sure the problem
is down in the new cygwin1.dll but I don't have the time or knowledge to go
digging into that beast. Also, I'm not sure what interaction on my system is
causing the problem. Clearly if Tino can run my testAccept.exe, then there
has got to be something different...
>
> Any suggestions anyone?

Do you by any chance have any firewall software running on the daemon'ish
machine? ZoneAlaram perhaps?


Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.exposure.org.uk



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

2003-02-14 Thread Robert Citek


At 01:26 PM 2/14/2003 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>So, that experiment was a bad idea.  I turned off access again.  Yet, I
>still have the feeling that many people are downloading packages
>directly (from mirrors I suppose) and then we get to experience the
>maddening "I downloaded foo and it gives me an error about missing bar.
>What in the world could possibly be the problem"

They are using apt-get to install Cygwin.  :-)
[ wishful thinking ]

Imagine installing, upgrading, and managing a bunch of OpenSource Software
(not just Cygwin) on a Windows machine with 'apt-get.'

Regards,
- Robert


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Problem with accept(2) on the 1003.20.0.0 release

2003-02-14 Thread jeff_burch

Dear Tino and the rest of the Cygwin community,

I made a post yesterday (2/13) on this problem and posted a testAccept.cpp program. By 
the way, my new version of cygwin and g++ agreed perfectly with Tino's response. Also, 
tests to use a specific "real" address in the bind( ) call didn't change the  problem 
behavior...

As an experiment, I happened to have an old version of cygwin's install package on a 
server and have move the problem machine back to the distant past: 

uname -a
CYGWIN_NT-5.0 SSLGROUPOB 1.3.3(0.46/3/2) 2001-09-12 23:54 i686 unknown

g++ --version
2.95.3-5

The testAccept.exe built on this version of Cygwin works perfectly. Also, my 
testAccept.exe built on the lastest version of Cygwin runs perfectly on this version 
of Cygwin. And one more "fun fact": I tweaked the program and built it under Visual 
C++ and it runs perfectly.

So, on my machine the new version of Cygwin has a problem! Accept(2) will hang on the 
second call for the same socket. I wonder who else in the world will have similar 
problem. Tino reports that he doesn't have any problems on his machine...

At this point, I don't know what else to try. I'm pretty sure the problem is down in 
the new cygwin1.dll but I don't have the time or knowledge to go digging into that 
beast. Also, I'm not sure what interaction on my system is causing the problem. 
Clearly if Tino can run my testAccept.exe, then there has got to be something 
different...

Any suggestions anyone?

- J
Jeff Burch
Communications Solutions Department
Agilent Laboratories
Phone: 650-485-6364
Fax: 650-485-8092
email:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 -Original Message-
From:   Tino Lange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent:   Thursday, February 13, 2003 2:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Problem with accept(2) on the 1003.20.0.0 release

Hi!

I remeber some time ago hanging my sshd on the second connect if it was
bound to all interfaces.
Just a weird idea: Could you try to bind the server socket only to your
"real" IP and try again with telnet  ?

Tino

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: cron and network drives

Igor Pechtchanski wrote:

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc.) wrote:



[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Hi,

is there a possibility to reach the network drives with cron. My
scripts work fine and can reach the network drives when I execute them
from command line. With cron there is no effect. Is there a
possibility to copy some file from cygwin to a network (windows)
drive, without modifieing the network computer (like ssh, etc.)?

Can I get cron to work with network drives?


Only if you make them publically accessible.

We need an entry in the FAQ about the inaccessiblity of network shares
from Cygwin run services.



FWIW, it's in the User's Guide:

	Igor


Thanks Igor.  I'll ask David if he can add this verbiage to the FAQ
too.



--
Larry Hall  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFK Partners, Inc.  http://www.rfk.com
838 Washington Street   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

At 10:34 2003-02-14, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> ...
>
> Can anyone offer any explanation about this?  Or maybe convince me that
> I'm wrong in noticing this trend?  I suppose that it is possible that
> we are now hitting a newer stupider brand of user who just can't be
> bothered to read the cygwin web site and click on a link to download
> but I'm wondering if there is another explanation.  Maybe there is
> a popular web page out there with wrong advice or something...
>
> cgf

Well, guess what comes up first on a Google search for "cygwin install"?
See for yourself:  (just in
case, the first match I get is 
,
last updated on March 24, 2000). :-(
I don't know if there's anything that can be done about it, though...
Igor

Wow. Classic Cygwin humor, number 1 on Google!

Did you notice the copyright holder for these pages?

I still think APHC's joke show is funnier.

RRS 

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

> On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> > I tried an experiment recently where I turned on ftp access to the
> > cygwin download directory on sources.redhat.com.  The result seemed
> > to be that people started downloading cygwin's package .tar.bz2 files
> > directly and (somehow) used tar to extract files rather than running
> > setup.exe.
> >
> > So, that experiment was a bad idea.  I turned off access again.  Yet, I
> > still have the feeling that many people are downloading packages
> > directly (from mirrors I suppose) and then we get to experience the
> > maddening "I downloaded foo and it gives me an error about missing bar.
> > What in the world could possibly be the problem"
> >
> > Can anyone offer any explanation about this?  Or maybe convince me that
> > I'm wrong in noticing this trend?  I suppose that it is possible that
> > we are now hitting a newer stupider brand of user who just can't be
> > bothered to read the cygwin web site and click on a link to download
> > but I'm wondering if there is another explanation.  Maybe there is
> > a popular web page out there with wrong advice or something...
> >
> > cgf
>
> Well, guess what comes up first on a Google search for "cygwin install"?
> See for yourself:  (just in
> case, the first match I get is
,
> last updated on March 24, 2000). :-(
> I don't know if there's anything that can be done about it, though...

Well, Gary (Gary R. Van Sickle) is the maintainer of that page, so


Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.exposure.org.uk



--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Zsh filename completion sluggishness?

2003-02-14 Thread Matt Armstrong

Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 10:12:54AM -0700, Matt Armstrong wrote:
>>In the Win32 world, quotes around path elements are valid.  If I have:
>>
>>PATH="c:\foo bar"
>>
>>cmd.exe will find executables in that dir.
>>
>>When I run bash or zsh, things in "c:\foo bar" aren't found.
>
> This is a UNIX emulation environment.  "c:\foo bar" doesn't mean the c drive
> in a PATH variable.  It means the 'c' directory followed by the '\foo bar'
> directory.  Colon is the separator for PATH.
>
> The correct syntax for the above is PATH="/cygdrive/c/foo bar" .

I understand completely -- as I said somewhat ambiguously I was
setting the path to "c:\foo bar" in cmd.exe, then running bash.

When Cygwin initializes its PATH from the Win32 one, it doesn't handle
quoted elements properly.

E.g. cygwin converts the Win32 path like this:

c:\foo;"c:\bar" -> /cygdrive/c/foo:"c:\bar"

But it should do this:

c:\foo;"c:\bar" -> /cygdrive/c/foo:/cygdrive/c/bar

The latter is the semantic equivalent to the Win32 path.

The session below describes exactly what I'm talking about.

Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]
(C) Copyright 1985-2000 Microsoft Corp.

C:\>cd foo bar

C:\foo bar>dir
 Volume in drive C is MYDISK
 Volume Serial Number is 7C67-4A84

 Directory of C:\foo bar

02/14/2003  10:01a.
02/14/2003  10:01a..
02/14/2003  10:01a  19 foobar.cmd
   1 File(s) 19 bytes
   2 Dir(s)   1,021,567,488 bytes free

C:\foo bar>cd ..

C:\>foobar
'foobar' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.

C:\>set PATH="c:\foo bar";%PATH%

C:\>foobar

C:\>echo I ran foobar!
I ran foobar!

C:\>cd cygwin

C:\cygwin>cygwin

maarmstr@MAARMSTR ~
$ which foobar.cmd
foobar.cmd: Command not found.

maarmstr@MAARMSTR ~
$ echo $PATH
/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:"c:/foo 
bar":/cygdrive/c/WINNT/system32:/cygdrive/c/WINNT:/cygdrive/c/WINNT/System32/Wbem:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin

maarmstr@MAARMSTR ~
$ export PATH='/cygdrive/c/foo bar':$PATH

maarmstr@MAARMSTR ~
$ which foobar.cmd
/cygdrive/c/foo bar/foobar.cmd

maarmstr@MAARMSTR ~
$

-- 
matt

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

2003-02-14 Thread Igor Pechtchanski

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> I tried an experiment recently where I turned on ftp access to the
> cygwin download directory on sources.redhat.com.  The result seemed
> to be that people started downloading cygwin's package .tar.bz2 files
> directly and (somehow) used tar to extract files rather than running
> setup.exe.
>
> So, that experiment was a bad idea.  I turned off access again.  Yet, I
> still have the feeling that many people are downloading packages
> directly (from mirrors I suppose) and then we get to experience the
> maddening "I downloaded foo and it gives me an error about missing bar.
> What in the world could possibly be the problem"
>
> Can anyone offer any explanation about this?  Or maybe convince me that
> I'm wrong in noticing this trend?  I suppose that it is possible that
> we are now hitting a newer stupider brand of user who just can't be
> bothered to read the cygwin web site and click on a link to download
> but I'm wondering if there is another explanation.  Maybe there is
> a popular web page out there with wrong advice or something...
>
> cgf

Well, guess what comes up first on a Google search for "cygwin install"?
See for yourself:  (just in
case, the first match I get is ,
last updated on March 24, 2000). :-(
I don't know if there's anything that can be done about it, though...
Igor
-- 
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
  |\  _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-.  ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'   Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk!
  -- /usr/games/fortune


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

I tried an experiment recently where I turned on ftp access to the
cygwin download directory on sources.redhat.com.  The result seemed
to be that people started downloading cygwin's package .tar.bz2 files
directly and (somehow) used tar to extract files rather than running
setup.exe.

So, that experiment was a bad idea.  I turned off access again.  Yet, I
still have the feeling that many people are downloading packages
directly (from mirrors I suppose) and then we get to experience the
maddening "I downloaded foo and it gives me an error about missing bar.
What in the world could possibly be the problem"

Can anyone offer any explanation about this?  Or maybe convince me that
I'm wrong in noticing this trend?  I suppose that it is possible that
we are now hitting a newer stupider brand of user who just can't be
bothered to read the cygwin web site and click on a link to download
but I'm wondering if there is another explanation.  Maybe there is
a popular web page out there with wrong advice or something...

cgf
--
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
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: cron and network drives

2003-02-14 Thread Igor Pechtchanski

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc.) wrote:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > is there a possibility to reach the network drives with cron. My
> > scripts work fine and can reach the network drives when I execute them
> > from command line. With cron there is no effect. Is there a
> > possibility to copy some file from cygwin to a network (windows)
> > drive, without modifieing the network computer (like ssh, etc.)?
> >
> > Can I get cron to work with network drives?
>
> Only if you make them publically accessible.
>
> We need an entry in the FAQ about the inaccessiblity of network shares
> from Cygwin run services.

FWIW, it's in the User's Guide:

Igor
-- 
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
  |\  _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-.  ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'   Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk!
  -- /usr/games/fortune


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: The humble and other editing keys

> Since at least 1979, when I started using Warren Montgomery's
> Emacs on System III UNIX, I have been annoyed with DEC's and
> RMS's treatment of the  (or  key as they called
> it. In those days, I "reconfigured" my keyboard to fix this
> abortion.
> 
> I want  to do what any self-respecting  should do,
> namely delete the character at the cursor.
> 
> Anyone know how to do this with Cygwin command line editing?

In bash you can add the following

# DEL key in bash
"\e[3~": delete-char

to your ~/.inputrc or your /etc/inputrc file to get a functioning DEL ke.


Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.exposure.org.uk


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: The humble and other editing keys

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 07:12:34PM +0100, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
>* Lee D. Rothstein (03-02-14 18:44 +0100)
>> Since at least 1979, when I started using [...]
>
>> I want  to do what any self-respecting  should do,
>> namely delete the character at the cursor.
>> 
>> Anyone know how to do this with Cygwin command line editing?
>
>Cygwin doesn't have any command line editing capabilities, I'm aware 
>of.

?  Cygwin has the stty command at least, just like UNIX.

cgf
--
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
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: The humble and other editing keys

* Lee D. Rothstein (03-02-14 18:44 +0100)
> Since at least 1979, when I started using [...]

> I want  to do what any self-respecting  should do,
> namely delete the character at the cursor.
> 
> Anyone know how to do this with Cygwin command line editing?

Cygwin doesn't have any command line editing capabilities, I'm aware 
of.

Depending on your application and regarding your experience ("since at 
least 1979...")

"man readline",

"man zshzle",

"man (x)emacs",

"man vim" 

should be sufficient. Also have a look at the info pages (if you're 
using pinfo...).


Thorsten
-- 
 Content-Type: text/explicit; charset=ISO-8859-666 (Parental Advisory)
 Content-Transfer-Warning: message contains innuendos not suited for
 children under the age of 18


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Zsh filename completion sluggishness?