Re: what about a Security category?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lapo Luchini wrote: What about a Security category? No one else would like it? The number of pertinent packages is growing in time 0=) Lapo - -- L a p o L u c h i n i l a p o @ l a p o . i t w w w . l a p o . i t / -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkHdN7IACgkQaJiCLMjyUvs28ACdGvkUsBNUCMGVHsU9/uGETuPV 4xkAoKtv5zLzRGxdsBIEbaWK0YjfCjof =dbFY -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: what about a Security category?
Lapo Luchini schrieb: What about a Security category? No one else would like it? The number of pertinent packages is growing in time 0=) Which packages? We agreed to stay with the debian names only. Currently most of them are in Net. Which non-Net packages should go to such a Security category? $ egrep -B10 category:.*(Net$|Net ) setup.ini|grep @ |cut -c3- autossh c3270 inetutils irc lftp libopenldap2 libopenldap2_2_7 lighttpd naim ncftp netcat nfs-server openldap openldap-devel openssh pr3270 proftpd rsync setsid setup stunnel suite3270 tin ttcp whois xinetd PS: Missing IMHO is just non-US, with those packages in debian unstable: erlang-slang, httperf, netsaint-nrpe-plugin, netsaint-nrpe-server, pgp5i, rsaref2, siege-ssltunnelv, zmailer-ssl But non-US should be parallel to the contrib and release dirs on the filesystem level, if someone wants to maintain some of them. (to ease mirroring). -- Reini Urban http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/
Re: [pakage updates] gnupg 1.2.6-2 / gnupg 1.4.0-2
Hi Lapo, http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/release/gnupg/gnupg-1.4.0-2.tar.bz2 For what is worth I'm using this both alone and together with enigmail/thunderbird with no problem (even downloading keys from keyservers). I also verified that it works. Do you thing this is enough to promote it from test to current? Volker -- PGP/GPG key (ID: 0x9F8A785D) available from wwwkeys.de.pgp.net key-fingerprint 550D F17E B082 A3E9 F913 9E53 3D35 C9BA 9F8A 785D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [pakage updates] gnupg 1.2.6-2 / gnupg 1.4.0-2
Volker Quetschke wrote: Hi Lapo, http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/release/gnupg/gnupg-1.4.0-2.tar.bz2 For what is worth I'm using this both alone and together with enigmail/thunderbird with no problem (even downloading keys from keyservers). I also verified that it works. Do you thing this is enough to promote it from test to current? I've also been using it alone and with enigmail/thunderbird without problems, including downloading keys. I'd say it's ready to go to current. -- David Rothenbergerspammer? - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG/PGP: 0x7F67E734, C233 365A 25EF 2C5F C8E1 43DF B44F BA26 7F67 E734
RE: xterm
not 100% on topic, but this may help. if you want to know if you have something installed from one of the cygwin packages, try the attached script. it will search through all installed packages and look for the name you supply, e.g. whichpackage xterm.exe gives (on my machine): --- xterm /usr/bin/xterm.exe so it's installed in a package called xterm and installed to /usr/bin. in your case it would have come up with no results, which indicates the application isn't installed from any package. at which point, it's usually worth looking through all the available packages in setup. this is similar to cygcheck -f /usr/bin/xterm but you can use search patterns and don't need to know where the file you are searching on is installed (because cygcheck -f xterm doesn't work, but then you could use locate first. as always there are a zillion ways to achieve the same tricks) hth, mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Meadows, Marty Sent: 05 January 2005 19:34 To: 'cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com' Subject: xterm I've downloaded cygwin/x to my windows xp platform. In /usr/X11R6/bin I see the following x clients: xhost, xdpyinfo, xclock, xeyes ... but I don't see xterm. Shouldn't I have an xterm? I also don't see a startx or startxwin.bat file anyplace in the cygwin/x freeware ... and I don't see any X-startup-scripts stuff ... anywhere. Seems like I'm missing some important pieces to the puzzle. What am I doing wrong? Thanks! Martin Meadows This e-mail (and any attachments) may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please do not disclose, copy, distribute, disseminate or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error please inform us and delete it. Should you wish to communicate with us by e-mail we cannot guarantee the security of any data outside our own computer systems. For the protection of our systems and staff, incoming and outgoing emails are automatically scanned for viruses and content. whichpackage Description: Binary data
src/winsup/mingw ChangeLog include/stdio.h
CVSROOT:/cvs/src Module name:src Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-06 11:10:58 Modified files: winsup/mingw : ChangeLog winsup/mingw/include: stdio.h Log message: * include/stdio.h (P_tmpdir): Add define. Patches: http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/mingw/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=srcr1=1.244r2=1.245 http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/mingw/include/stdio.h.diff?cvsroot=srcr1=1.24r2=1.25
src/winsup/mingw ChangeLog include/_mingw.h
CVSROOT:/cvs/src Module name:src Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-06 11:20:52 Modified files: winsup/mingw : ChangeLog winsup/mingw/include: _mingw.h Log message: * include/_mingw.h (__int16): Define as short. Patches: http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/mingw/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=srcr1=1.245r2=1.246 http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/mingw/include/_mingw.h.diff?cvsroot=srcr1=1.33r2=1.34
src/winsup/cygwin ChangeLog timer.cc
CVSROOT:/cvs/src Module name:src Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-06 14:09:17 Modified files: winsup/cygwin : ChangeLog timer.cc Log message: * timer.cc (timer_thread): Pass sigev pointer value as per SuSv3 rather than pointer to sigev. Patches: http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/cygwin/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=srcr1=1.2651r2=1.2652 http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/cygwin/timer.cc.diff?cvsroot=srcr1=1.3r2=1.4
src/winsup/cygwin timer.cc
CVSROOT:/cvs/src Module name:src Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-06 16:33:59 Modified files: winsup/cygwin : timer.cc Log message: update copyright Patches: http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/cygwin/timer.cc.diff?cvsroot=srcr1=1.4r2=1.5
src/winsup/cygwin dcrt0.cc path.cc pinfo.cc
CVSROOT:/cvs/src Module name:src Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-06 16:36:40 Modified files: winsup/cygwin : dcrt0.cc path.cc pinfo.cc Log message: update copyright Patches: http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/cygwin/dcrt0.cc.diff?cvsroot=srcr1=1.226r2=1.227 http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/cygwin/path.cc.diff?cvsroot=srcr1=1.336r2=1.337 http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/cygwin/pinfo.cc.diff?cvsroot=srcr1=1.139r2=1.140
src/winsup/cygwin ChangeLog fhandler_disk_file.cc
CVSROOT:/cvs/src Module name:src Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-06 17:43:55 Modified files: winsup/cygwin : ChangeLog fhandler_disk_file.cc Log message: * fhandler_disk_file.cc (fhandler_base::open_fs): Don't allow opening directories for writing. Patches: http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/cygwin/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=srcr1=1.2652r2=1.2653 http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/cygwin/fhandler_disk_file.cc.diff?cvsroot=srcr1=1.94r2=1.95
src/winsup/cygwin ChangeLog syscalls.cc
CVSROOT:/cvs/src Module name:src Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-06 22:10:10 Modified files: winsup/cygwin : ChangeLog syscalls.cc Log message: * syscalls.cc (rename): Fix behaviour in case of renaming directories according to SUSv3. Patches: http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/cygwin/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=srcr1=1.2653r2=1.2654 http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/cygwin/syscalls.cc.diff?cvsroot=srcr1=1.354r2=1.355
src/winsup/cygwin ChangeLog fhandler_process.cc
CVSROOT:/cvs/src Module name:src Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-06 23:00:08 Modified files: winsup/cygwin : ChangeLog fhandler_process.cc Log message: * fhandler_process.cc: Use strcasematch instead of strcasecmp throughout. Patches: http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/cygwin/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=srcr1=1.2654r2=1.2655 http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/cygwin/fhandler_process.cc.diff?cvsroot=srcr1=1.47r2=1.48
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 11:32:14PM -0500, Brian Bruns wrote: Remember, alot of these have been in the fortunes package for god knows how long, and Cygwin isn't the only one thats going to have them. I'm betting that any distro that has the Fortunes package has them too. Right. The README of the package says this: The potentially offensive fortunes are installed by default on FreeBSD systems. If you're absolutely, *positively*, without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt sure that your user community goes berzerk/sues your pants off/drops dead upon reading one of them, edit the Makefile in the subdirectory datfiles, and do make all install. So, we do undoubtedly have the default version and I am undoubtedly getting more prudish about this type of thing. Maybe we need a vote. I would really like to know how people feel about this. We haven't had a vote in a long time so: How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin fortune files? [ ] Offended. Think about the children! [X] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. [ ] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? Offensive fortunes should probably be accessible only through -o optiona but they definitely _must_ stay there. I would not even bother encoding them with rot13. VH. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 09:57:48AM +0100, Vaclav Haisman wrote: On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 11:32:14PM -0500, Brian Bruns wrote: Remember, alot of these have been in the fortunes package for god knows how long, and Cygwin isn't the only one thats going to have them. I'm betting that any distro that has the Fortunes package has them too. Right. The README of the package says this: The potentially offensive fortunes are installed by default on FreeBSD systems. If you're absolutely, *positively*, without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt sure that your user community goes berzerk/sues your pants off/drops dead upon reading one of them, edit the Makefile in the subdirectory datfiles, and do make all install. So, we do undoubtedly have the default version and I am undoubtedly getting more prudish about this type of thing. Maybe we need a vote. I would really like to know how people feel about this. We haven't had a vote in a long time so: How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin fortune files? [ ] Offended. Think about the children! [X] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. [ ] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? Offensive fortunes should probably be accessible only through -o optiona but they definitely _must_ stay there. I would not even bother encoding them with rot13. No choice but to. -o files are expected to be rot13-encoded by the program. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
On Jan 5 23:26, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 02:36:53PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not sure if the highly obscene limericks (/usr/share/fortune/limerick) are meant to be in the cygwin distro... Wow. I think I vaguely recall that something like this was in fortune but, if I thought it was a good idea a couple of years ago, I have obviously grown more prudish since then. AFAICT, our fortune maintainer is long gone so I guess we're looking for a volunteer who would like to take up this package. I don't know about Corinna but I don't like having this type of thing in the distribution. I have no problems at all with having this in the distro. Corinna, you originally released this. Where did you find it? Did you just package it up directly from a BSD distribution? I don't remember but probably from FreeBSD. That's the first point where I'm looking for stuff, usually. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
On Jan 5 23:43, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: Ok, I will maintain it and will get a release out in the next couple days (one week at the outside). For the record, I will be changing limerick (and gerrold.limerick, which is in the freebsd sources) to -o files but continuing to install them. They will be installed rot13'd, and fortunes won't come from them unless you specify you want offensive fortunes on the command line. That's cool. Thanks for doing this. The way you do it is probably the best alternative. I would find it very annoying if the offensive jokes would just go away. It doesn't matter if one loves or hates these jokes, or if somebody feels offended. It's a matter of free choice. Nobody has to read them, after all. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Memory for large arrays in cygwin/g77
-Original Message- From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Mark Hadfield Sent: 06 January 2005 00:58 Dante Chialvo wrote: I have similar problem than the one posted a while ago in http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-02/msg00842.html Using cygwin/g77, in a PC with 1024 Mb of physical memory. After compiling and running the following test program the limit of 160 Mb cannot be surpassed. error message after running C:\cygwin\home\dchialvo\test.exe (1972): *** MapViewOfFileEx(0x71C, in_h 0x71C) failed, Win32 error 6 Just to provide another data point, I have the same problem. I have g77, g95 and grfortran (gfc) installed (see below). With heap_chunk_in_mb set to 1024, on a machine with 1024 MiB RAM I can run a simple Fortran program with an array of up to ~ 1023 MiB. With g77 gfc the limit is 156 MiB and beyond that it fails with something like gfctest.exe (844): *** MapViewOfFileEx(0x224, in_h 0x224) failed, Win32 error 6 Any suggestions will be appreciatted Use g95 It may also be possible to workaround the problem by fooling around with the default stack allocation size; this can have knock-on effects which clear up the reserved area of the process' memory map that error message is complaining about. See http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-10/msg01188.html or http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-07/msg00646.html for the full gory details, and look up the -Wl,--stack= option. You might need to play around with values for the stack size until you find one that helps! cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
-Original Message- From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Kal.Dee Sent: 06 January 2005 03:37 Hi all, Not sure if the highly obscene limericks (/usr/share/fortune/limerick) are meant to be in the cygwin distro... Kalman Dee Canberra, OZ :) ROFLMAO thank you for pointing out this hilarious collection of limericks, I never knew it was there! cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:54:16 -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: My write-in candidate: [x] Not offended. Clean it up anyway. It's unprofessional in the extreme and can only result in embarassment and trouble. As a Christian, I agree with Gary. :) I actually think it's an upstream bug. The limerick file meets the offensive category and so, according to the notes file, should be limerick-o and be rot-13 encrypted (then we can throw the DMCA at offended people, too). Looks like fortune is due for an update to the /usr/share/doc/ FHS standard anyway. There is plenty of 1st Amendment content on the Internet, but let people get it elsewhere. Me too: [x] Not offended. Clean it up anyway. It's unprofessional in the extreme and can only result in embarassment and trouble. I agree it should be rot-13 etc. Bill -- ___ oo // \\ De Chelonian Mobile (_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN \ \_/_\_/The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control /_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org This e-mail transmission is strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this email in error, please reply to the sender as soon as possible and delete the message. Please note that we are able to, and reserve the right to, monitor e-mail communications passing through our network. The views expressed in this email are not that of the company unless specified within the message. The inclusion of this footnote indicates that the mail message and any attachments have been checked for the presence of known viruses. If you have any comments regarding our policy please direct them to [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information on a proactive email security service working around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Cannot build 21.4.16 under cygwin (gcc 3.3.3)
Henry, On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 11:10:26PM +, Henry S. Thompson wrote: Jason Tishler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sigh. More fodder for the spammers... :,( On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:22:48PM +, Henry S. Thompson wrote: Ah, but rebasing cygwin1.dll _did_ fix the problem (once I had tracked down cygserver and cygrunsrv in the Process Manager and nuked them). Rebasing cygwin1.dll is not recommended which is why rebaseall explicitly skips it. Oops -- sorry, your instruction page didn't mention that. I'm not sure what you mean by instruction page, but my README implies one should only use rebaseall unless they really know what they are doing. What do you recommend given the evidence so far? See below... [I am now also suffering from the cygheap base address mismatch phenom., presumably as a result, from at least one app (psql), so I would like a better solution.] So, I should reinstall a clean cygwin, then rebaseall? My naive assumption was that was much _more_ drastic than just rebasing the dlls involved. . . I recommend the following: 1. Just reinstall cygwin1.dll to make sure it is based at 0x6100. 2. Following the steps in my README: Use the following procedure to rebase your entire system: 1. shutdown all Cygwin processes 2. start bash (do not use rxvt) 3. execute rebaseall (in the bash window) If you get any errors due to DLLs being in-use or read-only, then take the appropriate action and rerun rebaseall. Otherwise, you run the risk of fork() failing. BTW, you may want to run rebaseall with the -v (i.e., verbose) flag to verify you haven't run out of address space. For example, if some of your DLL are rebased to near 0x6100 or below, then you are likely to have problems. Jason -- PGP/GPG Key: http://www.tishler.net/jason/pubkey.asc or key servers Fingerprint: 7A73 1405 7F2B E669 C19D 8784 1AFD E4CC ECF4 8EF6 -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
EFS encrypted files ssh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Is it normal that during an SSH connection EFS-encrypted files are not accessible? Is it for the way the SSH token autentication is made? Lapo - -- Lapo Luchini [EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP X.509 keys available) http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkHdON0ACgkQaJiCLMjyUvvR1ACfZ3UMniGpcoj9WKdj6cadTjRT OUkAmwdhzVvq4rlvqioq6mNiHrl21yJp =HX3+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:24:17AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Jan 5 23:43, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: Ok, I will maintain it and will get a release out in the next couple days (one week at the outside). For the record, I will be changing limerick (and gerrold.limerick, which is in the freebsd sources) to -o files but continuing to install them. They will be installed rot13'd, and fortunes won't come from them unless you specify you want offensive fortunes on the command line. That's cool. Thanks for doing this. The way you do it is probably the best alternative. I would find it very annoying if the offensive jokes would just go away. It doesn't matter if one loves or hates these jokes, or if somebody feels offended. It's a matter of free choice. Nobody has to read them, after all. Ok. I think the consensus is that they should stay and rot13 is a suitable alternative. Thanks again, Yitzchak for doing this. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Information
We received your email. The photo submission period for our holiday contest has ended. If your email contains an inquiry, we will do our best to respond to you within 24 hours. Sincerely, The PETsMART.com Team Check out our Holiday Pet Photo Contest at http://www.petsmart.com/photo_contest . Voting begins on Monday, December 13th. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
-Original Message- From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor Sent: 06 January 2005 04:39 Maybe we need a vote. I would really like to know how people feel about this. We haven't had a vote in a long time so: How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin fortune files? [ ] Offended. Think about the children! [ ] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. [ ] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? [X] I laughed so hard I shat! Fantastic! Please can we have more? :) cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Refused mail (too big)
Your email could not be delivered to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reason: too big (maximum size is 10240 bytes). Il messaggio non puo' essere recapitato a [EMAIL PROTECTED] in quanto eccessivamente grande (massimo 10240 byte). * MESSAGE BODY SUPPRESSED * -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
timer_create / POSIX non conformance ?
The problem appears with the [timer_create] function called with a [sigevent]
structure having its [sigev_notify] member set to [SIGEV_THREAD].
In this case, the function pointed to by the [sigev_notify_function] member is
prototyped [void(*)(union sigval)] and should receive the [sigev_value] member.
(according to The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 6 IEEE Std 1003.1, 2004
Edition)
On various Linux systems (Debian, Fedora...), the behaviour is appropriate.
Under Cygwin, in order to perform correctly, I have to declare my function :
static void SignalTimer(union sigval *sig)
instead of : static void SignalTimer(union sigval sig).
Actually, the function receives a pointer to the sigev_value member rather than
the union itself.
I had a glance at the cygwin source code (file: timer.cc)
case SIGEV_THREAD:
{
pthread_t notify_thread;
debug_printf (%p starting thread, x);
int rc = pthread_create (notify_thread,
tt.evp.sigev_notify_attributes,(void * (*) (void *))
tt.evp.sigev_notify_function,tt.evp.sigev_value);
The last argument: [tt.evp.sigev_value] is probably wrong (passing an address)
FYI: installed cygwin 1.5.12-1 on XP SP2
Any comments and/or a fix in an upcoming snapshot or release will be
appreciated.
Claude Roblez
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Cannot build 21.4.16 under cygwin (gcc 3.3.3)
Jason Tishler writes: Henry, On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 11:10:26PM +, Henry S. Thompson wrote: Jason Tishler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sigh. More fodder for the spammers... :,( Damn. Sorry about that. 1. shutdown all Cygwin processes 2. start bash (do not use rxvt) 3. execute rebaseall (in the bash window) If you get any errors due to DLLs being in-use or read-only, then take the appropriate action and rerun rebaseall. Otherwise, you run the risk of fork() failing. /sur/bin/cygncurses++6.dll: new base = 6f27, new sizeReBaseImage (/usr/bin/cygpcre-0.dll) failed with last error = 6 =4 [sorry, obviously stderr and stdout mixed here] I reinstalled cygpcre, but it's not implicated in the xemacs pblm (I don't think . . .) BTW, you may want to run rebaseall with the -v (i.e., verbose) flag to verify you haven't run out of address space. For example, if some of your DLL are rebased to near 0x6100 or below, then you are likely to have problems. I think that was all OK. Net result: xemacs-21.4.16 compiled with gcc-3.3.3 still crashes with couldn't reserve . . . Sigh. ht -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam] -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: timer_create / POSIX non conformance ?
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 02:50:42PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem appears with the [timer_create] function called with a [sigevent]
structure having its [sigev_notify] member set to [SIGEV_THREAD].
In this case, the function pointed to by the [sigev_notify_function] member is
prototyped [void(*)(union sigval)] and should receive the [sigev_value] member.
(according to The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 6 IEEE Std 1003.1, 2004
Edition)
On various Linux systems (Debian, Fedora...), the behaviour is appropriate.
Under Cygwin, in order to perform correctly, I have to declare my function :
static void SignalTimer(union sigval *sig)
instead of : static void SignalTimer(union sigval sig).
Actually, the function receives a pointer to the sigev_value member rather than
the union itself.
I had a glance at the cygwin source code (file: timer.cc)
case SIGEV_THREAD:
{
pthread_t notify_thread;
debug_printf (%p starting thread, x);
int rc = pthread_create (notify_thread,
tt.evp.sigev_notify_attributes,(void * (*) (void *))
tt.evp.sigev_notify_function,tt.evp.sigev_value);
The last argument: [tt.evp.sigev_value] is probably wrong (passing an address)
I changed this code as per the patch below. Thanks for pinpointing where it
was going wrong.
A snapshot is being generated even as I type.
cgf
Index: timer.cc
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/winsup/cygwin/timer.cc,v
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -p -r1.3 timer.cc
--- timer.cc26 Nov 2004 04:15:09 - 1.3
+++ timer.cc6 Jan 2005 14:08:03 -
@@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ timer_thread (VOID *x)
debug_printf (%p starting thread, x);
int rc = pthread_create (notify_thread,
tt.evp.sigev_notify_attributes,
(void * (*) (void *))
tt.evp.sigev_notify_function,
-tt.evp.sigev_value);
+tt.evp.sigev_value.sival_ptr);
if (rc)
{
debug_printf (thread creation failed, %E);
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Cygrunsrv and other random Cygwin apps, 100% CPU
Yep, it looks like CSRSS.EXE is taking whatever is leftover from the Cygwin-related task. I did _MUCH_ web surfing last night, looking for information pertaining to the CSRSS.EXE and it looks like it's basically responsible for handling the Win32 subsystem. I tried tweaking this and that by adjusting the heap sizes but no change, so I put the registry entry back to default. However, I have discovered this little tidbit. It appears this behavior is limited the Cygwin processes you have access to. What I mean by that, is my account is an admin-level account, so of course I have the ability to stop/start services, which gives me access to the SSHD process. However, my wife's account is just a user account, and she does not. This problem only pops its ugly little head out if I start a Cygwin process under her account, say Bash, or Rxvt, or XWin, etc. Then I start random Windows applications until the max-CPU issue comes to, and the CPU spike only occurs with one of the Cygwin process I started with her account and the CSRSS.EXE. Now, if I don't actually start any Cygwin processes, which is the norm for my wife's account as she doesn't use Cygwin for anything, then the issue never pops up under her account at all. I launched Windows app. after Windows app. and it never occurred. On another note, the Administrator account on the machine has the same problem my account has, that being the ability to cause any currently running Cygwin process and the CSRSS.EXE to max the CPU. So I guess we can safely say it's not related to one account profile, I would assume. Are there previous Cygwin builds available for download? Maybe downgrading everything, one version at a time, would help me figure out what version of everything I was using prior this weekend's update, and this in-turn might help the incredible Cygwin programmers figure out what's changed since whatever that version may be, and now. Maybe? Sounds sensible anyways, though I only dabble in programming, so... :-) The search for a fix continues LOL :-) --- Chris Wilson Steven E. Harris wrote: Yes, I saw the same thing last night, after having updated my Cygwin installation over the weekend. In my case I was toying around with Exact Audio Copy, with bash, XEmacs, and a cygrunsrv-hosted exim instance running but more or less idle. Did you notice that csrss.exe was also eating a lot of CPU time? Once I stopped all my Cygwin-related processes, csrss.exe calmed back down and all was well. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Christopher Faylor wrote: How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin fortune files? [ ] Offended. Think about the children! [ ] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. [x] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? Gerrit -- =^..^= -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Another spurious multiple copies of cygwin1.dll -- this time in perl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps perl is looking for 0xBF bytes and only getting 0x75 bytes? But that does seem unlikely -- perl shouldn't be anywhere near such a pig as xemacs. Perl uses 8 MB for stack, however that is not too much I think. Could you post a perl snippet which results in the error? Gerrit -- =^..^= -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Another spurious multiple copies of cygwin1.dll -- this time in perl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: rebaseall was no help I'm rather puzzled -- any clues, anyone? rebaseall doesn't know about perl extension dlls which you may have installed manually, these need to be rebased manually (or added to the rebaseall list), there were some scripts posted to the list how to do this automatically, see the archives (or has someone links to the postings or scripts handy?). Gerrit -- =^..^= -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
No color when using ls
Hi all. I know this has probably been discussed before but I can't get it to work on my system. When using ls, the output is not in color. So I read that the following line should be added to .bashrc alias ls='ls --color=tty' I have done this, but it does not work. I guess my .bashrc file is not being read on startup, but I don't know how to fix it. .bashrc is located in my home directory. ( I've set my %HOME% environment variable to c:\home\myhomedir) I then tried to move .bashrc to / ( which is c:\cygwin ,as far as I can tell) but this did not help. I'm using RXVT to display my terminal. Any advice on what I should to fix this would be appreciated. Thanks -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: timer_create / POSIX non conformance ?
The problem appears with the [timer_create] function called with a [sigevent]
structure having its [sigev_notify] member set to [SIGEV_THREAD].
In this case, the function pointed to by the [sigev_notify_function] member is
prototyped [void(*)(union sigval)] and should receive the [sigev_value]
member.
(according to The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 6 IEEE Std 1003.1,
2004
Edition)
On various Linux systems (Debian, Fedora...), the behaviour is appropriate.
Under Cygwin, in order to perform correctly, I have to declare my function :
static void SignalTimer(union sigval *sig)
instead of : static void SignalTimer(union sigval sig).
Actually, the function receives a pointer to the sigev_value member rather
than
the union itself.
I had a glance at the cygwin source code (file: timer.cc)
case SIGEV_THREAD:
{
pthread_t notify_thread;
debug_printf (%p starting thread, x);
int rc = pthread_create (notify_thread,
tt.evp.sigev_notify_attributes,(void * (*) (void *))
tt.evp.sigev_notify_function,tt.evp.sigev_value);
The last argument: [tt.evp.sigev_value] is probably wrong (passing an
address)
I changed this code as per the patch below. Thanks for pinpointing where it
was going wrong.
A snapshot is being generated even as I type.
cgf
Index: timer.cc
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/winsup/cygwin/timer.cc,v
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -p -r1.3 timer.cc
--- timer.cc26 Nov 2004 04:15:09 - 1.3
+++ timer.cc6 Jan 2005 14:08:03 -
@@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ timer_thread (VOID *x)
debug_printf (%p starting thread, x);
int rc = pthread_create (notify_thread,
tt.evp.sigev_notify_attributes,
(void * (*) (void *))
tt.evp.sigev_notify_function,
-tt.evp.sigev_value);
+tt.evp.sigev_value.sival_ptr);
if (rc)
{
debug_printf (thread creation failed, %E);
As far as I can see, the latest snapshot (2005-Jan-06) solves the problem
(extensive testing will follow).
Thank you for your incredibly fast reply and snapshot delivery.
Claude Roblez
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
problems with overloading of the semantics of version number in cygwin/unison
There is a problem with the way that cygwin is updating the version numbers for cygwin/unison. Unison is used to synchronize filesystems; it can cross different operating systems over IP. The protocol uses the version number to decide whether two processes on different systems will communicate. 2.9.1 is the official released version. There is a beta version 2.10.2, but it is not widely deployed. Thus people (like me) will want to use the 2.9.1 version of cygwin's unison. However, cygwin is numbering its instance of this version 2.9.20-1. When you try to communicate using cygwin's 2.9.20-1 with a standard 2.9.1 version of unison running on another system, the communication fails after the handshake when it discovers that the cygwin version is 2.9.2 [sic]. Yes, I think that the handshake is truncating the protocol string. Anyway, my suggestion is that cygwin update the version of 2.9.1 that it is distributing, to separate the overloaded concept of version number into a cygwin version number (which could then be arbitrary) and leave the protocol number at 2.9.1 -- Richard Lethin Reservoir Labs, Inc. +1-212-780-0527 ext. 102 www.reservoir.com -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
login not possible on NT but on W2K and XP
Hi folks, situation: == a heterogenous network with NT(SVP 6a), W2K, XP and several unix-servers. I would like to skip to any desired server via sshd without password, because i don't want to take a bunch of keys with me. Also the windows-systems have to be reachable on this way. Not only therefore (but because i like it) i installed the same cygwin-version (1.5.11(0.116/4/2)) on these systems. problem: permission denied on the NT-System while login works fine on XP and W2K. The point 1. to 3. shows the behaviour on XP, W2K and NT (in this order). 1.) __ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ # ssh sys-10102 Warning: No xauth data; using fake authentication data for X11 forwarding. Last login: Thu Jan 6 14:31:10 2005 Fanfare!!! You are successfully logged in to this server!!! tos´ base is /home/tos [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ # logout Connection to sys-10102 closed. __ 2.) __ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ # ssh jet03a.gewkoelnag.de Warning: No xauth data; using fake authentication data for X11 forwarding. Last login: Thu Jan 6 14:56:42 2005 from 10.96.1.75 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ logout Connection to jet03a.gewkoelnag.de closed. __ 3.) __ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ # ssh mjet02p.gewkoelnag.de [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s password: Permission denied, please try again. [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s password: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ # __ i figured out, that it isn't really a ssh- but a login-problem. So i tested the login-behaviour on the 3 systems. 1.) __ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ # login tos Password: Last login: Thu Jan 6 15:24:00 on tty2 Fanfare!!! You are successfully logged in to this server!!! tos´ base is /home/tos [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ __ login wants pw 2.) __ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ login tos Last login: Thu Jan 6 15:24:20 on tty0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ __ no pw necessary (why!?) 3.) __ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ login tos Password: Login incorrect __ login not possible user tos is a domain-user which was announced to cygwins /etc/passwd via mkpasswd. There are no local users tos. I think my problem has to do with the user-validation against the domain-server but i don't know enough about the underlying concept. Meanwhile i tried so many attempts, read a lot of hints in cygwin-mailing list and documentation, changed permissions and so on ... but now i'm at my wits' end. i would appreciate very much any suggestions thanks in advance and kind regards, thomas (aka tos) -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: login not possible on NT but on W2K and XP
-Original Message- From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of tosch Sent: 06 January 2005 15:04 situation: == a heterogenous network with NT(SVP 6a), W2K, XP and several unix-servers. I would like to skip to any desired server via sshd without password, because i don't want to take a bunch of keys with me. Also the windows-systems have to be reachable on this way. Not only therefore (but because i like it) i installed the same cygwin-version (1.5.11(0.116/4/2)) on these systems. problem: permission denied on the NT-System while login works fine on XP and W2K. I think my problem has to do with the user-validation against the domain-server but i don't know enough about the underlying concept. http://www.google.com/search?q=pre+win2000+compatible+accesssourceid=mozilla-se archstart=0start=0ie=utf-8oe=utf-8client=firefox-arls=org.mozilla:en-US:of ficial may well be the thing you're looking for. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: No color when using ls
Might be how you're calling RXVT. :-/ Here is the command line sequence I use (via a shorcut on my Desktop, of course, hehe) :-) rxvt.exe -title Shell -e 'c:\cygwin\bin\bash.exe' --login -i I have the following User variable defined from System Properties/Advanced/Environment Variables: BASH_ENV = /home/cwilson/.bash_profile - My .bash_profile looks like this: # Start of .bash_profile # Source global definitions if [ -f /etc/bashrc ]; then . /etc/bashrc fi # Get the user-defined aliases and functions if [ -f ~/.bashrc ]; then . ~/.bashrc fi # End of .bash_profile - My .bashrc looks like this: # Start of .bashrc # Lets set the path first PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/home/cwilson/bin:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/mnt/c/WINNT/system32:/mnt/c/WINNT:/mnt/c/WINNT/System32/Wbem export PATH # User specific aliases and functions alias cp='cp -i' alias df='df -h' alias du='du -h' alias grep='grep --color' alias ls='ls -h --color' alias mv='mv -i' alias pico='nano -w' alias rm='rm -i' alias tar2='tar --use-compress-program=bzip2' alias who='who -T -H -u' alias whois='whois -h whois.networksolutions.com' alias ps='ps -W -a -f ux' alias sftp2='sftp -oPort=2200' alias ssh2='ssh -p2200' # Setup color variables BLACK=\[\033[0;30m\] DGRAY=\[\033[1;30m\] RED=\[\033[0;31m\] LRED=\[\033[1;31m\] GREEN=\[\033[0;32m\] LGREEN=\[\033[1;32m\] BROWN=\[\033[0;33m\] YELLOW=\[\033[1;33m\] BLUE=\[\033[0;34m\] LBLUE=\[\033[1;34m\] PURPLE=\[\033[0;35m\] LPURPLE=\[\033[1;35m\] CYAN=\[\033[0;36m\] LCYAN=\[\033[1;36m\] LGRAY=\[\033[0;37m\] WHITE=\[\033[1;37m\] NEUTRAL=\[\033[0m\] export BLACK DGRAY RED LRED GREEN LGREEN BROWN YELLOW BLUE export LBLUE PURPLE LPURPLE CYAN LCYAN LGRAY WHITE NEUTRAL # More information on colors: # 1st Digit 2nd Digit 3rd Digit # 0 - Reset 30 - Black 40 - Black # 1 - Bright31 - Red41 - Red # 2 - Dim 32 - Green 42 - Green # 3 - Underline 33 - Yellow 43 - Yellow # 4 - Unknown 34 - Blue 44 - Blue # 5 - Blink 35 - Magenta45 - Magenta # 6 - Unknown 36 - Cyan 46 - Cyan # 7 - Reverse 37 - White 47 - White # 8 - Hidden # User specific environment and startup programs BASH_ENV=$HOME/.bashrc REMOTE_HOST=`set | grep SSH_CLIENT | cut -f2 -d' | cut -f1 -d ` # If connecting, via SSH, from home machine: # --- IP address removed for privacy --- if [ $REMOTE_HOST == xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx ] then DISPLAY=$REMOTE_HOST:10 # Otherwise, just set to the standard :0 else DISPLAY=:0 fi DOMAINNAME=dawning.com FULLHOSTNAME=$HOSTNAME.$DOMAINNAME HISTIGNORE=[ ]*::bg:fg HOSTNAME=`/bin/hostname` INPUTRC=$HOME/.inputrc SHELL=/bin/bash TERM=vt100 USERNAME=$USER XAUTHORITY=$HOME/.Xauthority export BASH_ENV REMOTE_HOST DISPLAY DOMAINNAME FULLHOSTNAME HISTIGNORE export HOSTNAME INPUTRC SHELL TERM USERNAME XAUTHORITY # Fancy prompt: # (should all be on one line, email client might word-wrap) PS1=[EMAIL PROTECTED] $LRED\W$NEUTRAL$LBLUE]$NEUTRAL$ export PS1 for i in /etc/profile.d/*.sh ; do if [ -f $i ]; then . $i fi done # End of .bashrc - Please pardon the complexity of my .bashrc :-) I come from a Linux world and tend to use Cygwin to the max, lol. :-) - Chris Wilson Pico Geyer wrote: Hi all. I know this has probably been discussed before but I can't get it to work on my system. When using ls, the output is not in color. So I read that the following line should be added to .bashrc alias ls='ls --color=tty' I have done this, but it does not work. I guess my .bashrc file is not being read on startup, but I don't know how to fix it. .bashrc is located in my home directory. ( I've set my %HOME% environment variable to c:\home\myhomedir) I then tried to move .bashrc to / ( which is c:\cygwin ,as far as I can tell) but this did not help. I'm using RXVT to display my terminal. Any advice on what I should to fix this would be appreciated. Thanks -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Another spurious multiple copies of cygwin1.dll -- this time in perl
Gerrit, Could you post a perl snippet which results in the error? $ perl does it. Anything else, naturally, fails in the same way. rebaseall doesn't know about perl extension dlls which you may have installed manually, I haven't installed any perl extensions; I'm using the plain-vanilla version I d/l'd from the cygwin mirror. Investigating DLL base addresses, I discovered that Oracle had deposited some DLLs where Cygwin expects to find cygwin1.dll. So I edited the relevant registry keys and rebooted. No joy. Running listDLLs again, I now find the lines BaseSize Version Path 0x6165 0x26000 5.01.2600. C:\WINDOWS\System32\modemui.dll 0x6300 0x96000 6.00.2800.1468 C:\WINDOWS\System32\wininet.dll Is there room for cygwin1.dll between 0x61676001 and 0x62FF? It looks like there should be -- cygcheck lists the size as 1114k. Unhelpfully, listDLLs hangs when cygwin is running, so I can't use this tool to figure out exactly where cygwin1.dll is. Thanks again for your help, Fred -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: problems with overloading of the semantics of version number in cygwin/unison
Richard Lethin wrote: There is a problem with the way that cygwin is updating the version numbers for cygwin/unison. Unison is used to synchronize filesystems; it can cross different operating systems over IP. The protocol uses the version number to decide whether two processes on different systems will communicate. 2.9.1 is the official released version. There is a beta version 2.10.2, but it is not widely deployed. Thus people (like me) will want to use the 2.9.1 version of cygwin's unison. However, cygwin is numbering its instance of this version 2.9.20-1. When you try to communicate using cygwin's 2.9.20-1 with a standard 2.9.1 version of unison running on another system, the communication fails after the handshake when it discovers that the cygwin version is 2.9.2 [sic]. Yes, I think that the handshake is truncating the protocol string. Anyway, my suggestion is that cygwin update the version of 2.9.1 that it is distributing, to separate the overloaded concept of version number into a cygwin version number (which could then be arbitrary) and leave the protocol number at 2.9.1 No, this is nothing to do with cygwin, and everything to do with unnecessary inflexibility in the version checking of unison. It would be a very bad thing for Cygwin to distribute a version of unison which lies about which version it is to the other end of the connection. This is a problem that needs to be addressed upstream of Cygwin. Max. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: problems with overloading of the semantics of version number in cygwin/unison
Max Bowsher wrote: Richard Lethin wrote: There is a problem with the way that cygwin is updating the version numbers for cygwin/unison. Unison is used to synchronize filesystems; it can cross different operating systems over IP. The protocol uses the version number to decide whether two processes on different systems will communicate. 2.9.1 is the official released version. There is a beta version 2.10.2, but it is not widely deployed. Thus people (like me) will want to use the 2.9.1 version of cygwin's unison. However, cygwin is numbering its instance of this version 2.9.20-1. When you try to communicate using cygwin's 2.9.20-1 with a standard 2.9.1 version of unison running on another system, the communication fails after the handshake when it discovers that the cygwin version is 2.9.2 [sic]. Yes, I think that the handshake is truncating the protocol string. Anyway, my suggestion is that cygwin update the version of 2.9.1 that it is distributing, to separate the overloaded concept of version number into a cygwin version number (which could then be arbitrary) and leave the protocol number at 2.9.1 No, this is nothing to do with cygwin, and everything to do with unnecessary inflexibility in the version checking of unison. It would be a very bad thing for Cygwin to distribute a version of unison which lies about which version it is to the other end of the connection. Sure, it's a bad design choice in unison, but cygwin is using the version number in Unison - which means something about the protocol version in unison - to mean something about the software release - which operationally is not what unison really means. The result is that cygwin unison is broken. This is a problem that needs to be addressed upstream of Cygwin. Whatever. Max. -- Richard Lethin Reservoir Labs, Inc. +1-212-780-0527 ext. 102 www.reservoir.com -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:54:16 -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: My write-in candidate: [x] Not offended. Clean it up anyway. It's unprofessional in the extreme and can only result in embarassment and trouble. As a Christian, I agree with Gary. :) I actually think it's an upstream bug. The limerick file meets the offensive category and so, according to the notes file, should be limerick-o and be rot-13 encrypted (then we can throw the DMCA at offended people, too). Looks like fortune is due for an update to the /usr/share/doc/ FHS standard anyway. There is plenty of 1st Amendment content on the Internet, but let people get it elsewhere. As an atheist I always wonder why christians can turn the other cheek but cannot seem to muster how to turn their eyes away! If you don't like it then what stops you from simply not looking at it! Is something forcing you to use fortune or Cygwin or open and look at the contents of that file?!? [x] Because of the hub bub raised by the religious folk I had to download and check it out whereas if they just ignored it so would have I, proofing, once again, that by doing this they just draw more attention to it and cause more harm than good. -- E Pluribus Modem -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Renaming Cygwin DLLs
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 03:58:39PM -0600, Mike Disbrow wrote: I'd like to build the supporting Cygwin DLLs to be renamed to something other than cyg*.dll (e.g. cygwin1.dll to foo.dll), what is the best way to build the DLLs with different names? May I ask why you want to do this? I can't think of any valid reason to rename the DLL which would not involve trying to mask the existence of Cygwin. And, I can't think of any reason for doing that which does not involve either bypassing Cygwin's GPL or trying to take credit for a DLL which you didn't develop. I could conceive of someone wanting to do this because they'd think that by so doing they'd allow two versions of cygwin to exist on a system at the same time but since it isn't quite that simple, this isn't a valid reason for renaming the DLL. So, please enlighten me. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Me too: [x] Not offended. Clean it up anyway. It's unprofessional in the extreme and can only result in embarassment and trouble. I agree it should be rot-13 etc. -- Reini Urban http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: timer_create / POSIX non conformance ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: The problem appears with the [timer_create] function called with a [sigevent] structure having its [sigev_notify] member set to [SIGEV_THREAD]. In this case, the function pointed to by the [sigev_notify_function] member is prototyped [void(*)(union sigval)] and should receive the [sigev_value] member. (according to The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 6 IEEE Std 1003.1, 2004 Edition) ... The last argument: [tt.evp.sigev_value] is probably wrong (passing an address) Whow! Good catch. -- Reini Urban http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Bug: atof() can't parse NaN
Hi folks,
While fixing up glib-2.6.0 to build, I found a failure in the
floating-point tests. This is seemingly because atof() is bust.
This is a trivial example:
/* for NAN and INFINITY */
#define _ISOC99_SOURCE
#include assert.h
#include string.h
#include stdlib.h
#include math.h
#include ieeefp.h
int
main ()
{
double our_nan;
#ifdef NAN
our_nan = NAN;
#else
/* Do this before any call to setlocale. */
our_nan = atof (NaN);
#endif
assert (isnan (our_nan));
return 0;
}
When I run this (current net release) the assert fails, and it
segfaults.
Regards,
Roger
--
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Dear Cygwinistas: Steve Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] offers: Maybe the package maintainer could consider building two packages : a 'clean' fortune and rename the current package to 'fortune-xxx'. I have no idea how easy or difficult this is, but it would satisfy both camps. I second Steve. Debian offers both `fortunes' and `fortunes-off' (offensive), which sounds like the way to go, and should ease the `fortune' maintainer's life, as they're already split out. See below for gory details. Otherwise, my vote is [x] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? If I really want the offensive ones, I can dig them out of Debian for myself. :-) Best wishes, Max Hyre - gory details The Debian packages can be found at http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl\ ?keywords=fortunesearchon=namessubword=1\ version=stablerelease=main Package fortunes * stable (games): Data files containing fortune cookies 9708-25: all There are far over 15000 different 'fortune cookies' in this package. You'll need the fortune-mod package to display the cookies. and Package fortunes-off * stable (games): Data files containing offensive fortune cookies 9708-25: all This package contains 'fortune cookies' which some may consider to be offensive. Please do not install this package if you or your users are easily offended. You'll need the fortune-mod package to display the cookies. The `fortune-mod' package says These are the machine-dependent parts of the fortune package, i.e. the fortune program and the programs used for generating the data files. The fortune package displays epigrams selected randomly from a selection of fortune files. This is an enhanced version of the BSD program. The data files (which can be shared) are contained in the 'fortunes-min', 'fortunes', and 'fortunes-off' packages. Cygwin could offer all three, or fold the appropriate parts of `fortune-mod' into both the other two, but that's more (possibly unnecessary) work. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Another spurious multiple copies of cygwin1.dll -- this time in perl
Henry, I don't, in fact, run listDLLs on the program that won't open. Just tried it again: listDLLs -d cygwin and it hangs. Sheesh -- it hangs if I run it with any command-line options (other than /?) or none. I'll report the problem to Mark Russinovich at sysinternals. I suppose I _could_ run regmon and filemon to figure out where the problem is ... but that's a royal pain. They're great tools, but it's hard to grep large quantities of output when one doesn't know what one is looking for. Fred -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/05/05 09:38PM Maybe we need a vote. I would really like to know how people feel about this. We haven't had a vote in a long time so: How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin fortune files? [ ] Offended. Think about the children! [ ] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. [ ] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? [x] Not offended. Clean it up anyway. It's unprofessional in the extreme and can only result in embarassment and trouble. Make them all -o, and anyone who's sufficiently desirous of the clean limericks can supply a patch later. --Aaron V. Humphrey -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
[X] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
[x] Not offended. Clean it up anyway. It's unprofessional in the extreme and can only result in embarassment and trouble. As a Christian, I agree with Gary. :) As an atheist I always wonder why christians can turn the other cheek but cannot seem to muster how to turn their eyes away! If you don't like it then what stops you from simply not looking at it! Is something forcing you to use fortune or Cygwin or open and look at the contents of that file?!? [x] Because of the hub bub raised by the religious folk I had to download and check it out whereas if they just ignored it so would have I, proofing, once again, that by doing this they just draw more attention to it and cause more harm than good. While I'd like to avoid the religion flamewar, I should point out that I was only presenting a parody of an earlier As a Christian post with a different response. My (failed) goal was to point out the absurdity of that poistion in an unoffensive way. Discussions of religion are off-topic for this list and could be moved to cygwin-talk, or better yet to alt.religion on Usenet. To be clear, my voting position is that I don't think fortune should be removed, but the bug that puts the possibly offensive ones in plaintext should be fixed like any other bug. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
-Original Message- From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Andrew DeFaria Sent: 06 January 2005 15:49 Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:54:16 -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: My write-in candidate: [x] Not offended. Clean it up anyway. It's unprofessional in the extreme and can only result in embarassment and trouble. As a Christian, I agree with Gary. :) I actually think it's an upstream bug. The limerick file meets the offensive category and so, according to the notes file, should be limerick-o and be rot-13 encrypted (then we can throw the DMCA at offended people, too). Looks like fortune is due for an update to the /usr/share/doc/ FHS standard anyway. There is plenty of 1st Amendment content on the Internet, but let people get it elsewhere. As an atheist I always wonder why christians can turn the other cheek but cannot seem to muster how to turn their eyes away! As a card-carrying maniac, I always wonder why both christians and atheists cannnot seem to muster how to TITTTL! TITTTL! TITTTL! bock-bock-bock-ba-gaawwk! [Runs round, flapping arms like a chicken] cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
latest nfs server fix
Does anybody noticed mount problem with latest nfs server. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Message from Christopher Faylor on 01/05/05 08:38 PM PT quoted: How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin fortune files? [ ] Offended. Think about the children! [X] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. [X] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? I'm not offended and I don't care, if that makes sense. I have seen the comments made and I think we're overlooking a very important point here. This is provided to us for free, and from hard-working people at that. If you don't like it, find another software package that suits your needs. If you paid for it, then you'd have more ground for your claims. Alas, that's not the case here. In addition, Christopher did show a way for you to perform your own make to remove the offensive material and you can perform it on your own. If you're that insulted, do the make and get rid of it. If you're using Cygwin, you purchased a Microsoft operating system. Do you honestly think the product you paid for is 100% pure to your standards? I think not. Privacy issues with Windows Media Player come to mind, and I'm sure there are others. It's all about perspective folks. -MikeD -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
[ ] Offended. Think about the children! [x] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. [ ] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? But actually would have preferred a. [x] Oh Great! Now I'm gonna have to install fortune. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: problems with overloading of the semantics of version number in cygwin/unison
Hi Richard. I'm the maintainer of Unison for Cygwin. There is a problem with the way that cygwin is updating the version numbers for cygwin/unison. Unison is used to synchronize filesystems; it can cross different operating systems over IP. The protocol uses the version number to decide whether two processes on different systems will communicate. 2.9.1 is the official released version. There is a beta version 2.10.2, but it is not widely deployed. Thus people (like me) will want to use the 2.9.1 version of cygwin's unison. However, cygwin is numbering its instance of this version 2.9.20-1. When you try to communicate using cygwin's 2.9.20-1 with a standard 2.9.1 version of unison running on another system, the communication fails after the handshake when it discovers that the cygwin version is 2.9.2 [sic]. Yes, I think that the handshake is truncating the protocol string. You're right that Unison versions 2.9.1 and 2.9.20 won't talk to each other. Nor will either of them talk to 2.10.2, IIRC. Some of this may be just sloppy version checking, I'm not sure. At least some of it is required, because the Unison archive format has changed once or twice. If you tried to synchronize files using versions of Unison with incompatible archive formats, then bad things would happen, or so I'm told. That's the reason that the Cygwin developers put in the version checking. Anyway, my suggestion is that cygwin update the version of 2.9.1 that it is distributing, to separate the overloaded concept of version number into a cygwin version number (which could then be arbitrary) and leave the protocol number at 2.9.1 Other people have raised this problem before. I've been aware of it, but haven't managed to tackle it yet. Your proposed solution is right. Wherever the archive formats are incompatible, there should be a separate package. For example, instead of installing the latest Unison (e.g. 2.10.2-3, which may be incompatible with their server's version), the user could install whatever version of unison2.9.1, unison2.9.20, or unison2.10.2. The only reason this hasn't happened yet is because I haven't made it happen. I need to first find out for sure which versions have incompatible archive formats, or maybe just which versions will refuse to talk to each other. Then I'll have to redo all of my packaging work, say, 3 times over. Not impossible, but not enticing either. However, since only version 2.9.1 is available to you, I'll move it up in my queue and get to it ASAP. BTW, there have been a lot of new features and bug fixes since version 2.9.1. 2.10.2 is pretty stable; I think the developers are considering making a new stable release soon. If you can, consider asking your server admin to upgrade. Andrew. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: problems with overloading of the semantics of version number in cygwin/unison
Richard Lethin wrote: Max Bowsher wrote: Richard Lethin wrote: There is a problem with the way that cygwin is updating the version numbers for cygwin/unison. Unison is used to synchronize filesystems; it can cross different operating systems over IP. The protocol uses the version number to decide whether two processes on different systems will communicate. 2.9.1 is the official released version. There is a beta version 2.10.2, but it is not widely deployed. Thus people (like me) will want to use the 2.9.1 version of cygwin's unison. However, cygwin is numbering its instance of this version 2.9.20-1. When you try to communicate using cygwin's 2.9.20-1 with a standard 2.9.1 version of unison running on another system, the communication fails after the handshake when it discovers that the cygwin version is 2.9.2 [sic]. Yes, I think that the handshake is truncating the protocol string. Anyway, my suggestion is that cygwin update the version of 2.9.1 that it is distributing, to separate the overloaded concept of version number into a cygwin version number (which could then be arbitrary) and leave the protocol number at 2.9.1 No, this is nothing to do with cygwin, and everything to do with unnecessary inflexibility in the version checking of unison. It would be a very bad thing for Cygwin to distribute a version of unison which lies about which version it is to the other end of the connection. Sure, it's a bad design choice in unison, but cygwin is using the version number in Unison - which means something about the protocol version in unison - to mean something about the software release - which operationally is not what unison really means. The result is that cygwin unison is broken. Unison itself uses the same version number for protocol of software release. That is a problem if you cannot obtain unison binaries for all machines you wish to synchronize between from a single source. Nothing in this problem is in any way cygwin specific. Cygwin unison works without problems with other copies of cygwin unison, and any other platform's unison of the same version. Max. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
[ ] Offended. Think about the children! [ ] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. [X] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: problems with overloading of the semantics of version number in cygwin/unison
Max Bowsher wrote: Richard Lethin wrote: Max Bowsher wrote: Richard Lethin wrote: There is a problem with the way that cygwin is updating the version numbers for cygwin/unison. Unison is used to synchronize filesystems; it can cross different operating systems over IP. The protocol uses the version number to decide whether two processes on different systems will communicate. 2.9.1 is the official released version. There is a beta version 2.10.2, but it is not widely deployed. Thus people (like me) will want to use the 2.9.1 version of cygwin's unison. However, cygwin is numbering its instance of this version 2.9.20-1. When you try to communicate using cygwin's 2.9.20-1 with a standard 2.9.1 version of unison running on another system, the communication fails after the handshake when it discovers that the cygwin version is 2.9.2 [sic]. Yes, I think that the handshake is truncating the protocol string. Anyway, my suggestion is that cygwin update the version of 2.9.1 that it is distributing, to separate the overloaded concept of version number into a cygwin version number (which could then be arbitrary) and leave the protocol number at 2.9.1 No, this is nothing to do with cygwin, and everything to do with unnecessary inflexibility in the version checking of unison. It would be a very bad thing for Cygwin to distribute a version of unison which lies about which version it is to the other end of the connection. Sure, it's a bad design choice in unison, but cygwin is using the version number in Unison - which means something about the protocol version in unison - to mean something about the software release - which operationally is not what unison really means. The result is that cygwin unison is broken. Unison itself uses the same version number for protocol of software release. That is a problem if you cannot obtain unison binaries for all machines you wish to synchronize between from a single source. Nothing in this problem is in any way cygwin specific. Where does the version number 2.9.20-1 come from? Internally, Unison's version number is 2.9.20. In the Cygwin distribution, that package is numbered 2.9.20-1 because it's the first release of Unison 2.9.20 in Cygwin. If I were to apply some bug fixes or other changes and release a new version of 2.9.20, it would show up in the Cygwin mirrors as 2.9.20-2. But Unison would still tell you that you were using version 2.9.20. HTH, A. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Renaming Cygwin DLLs
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 03:58:39PM -0600, Mike Disbrow wrote: I'd like to build the supporting Cygwin DLLs to be renamed to something other than cyg*.dll (e.g. cygwin1.dll to foo.dll), what is the best way to build the DLLs with different names? May I ask why you want to do this? I can't think of any valid reason to rename the DLL which would not involve trying to mask the existence of Cygwin. And, I can't think of any reason for doing that which does not involve either bypassing Cygwin's GPL or trying to take credit for a DLL which you didn't develop. The motive isn't that sinister. We'll be deploying Cygwin's X Server to users and don't want the users to know whose X Server we're using. In fact, we're doing all we can to hide the fact that the application they're using is running through X. By changing the dll names we hope to make it a little harder for someone to determine we're using Cygwin's X Server so they don't get the source, and modify it in some malicious way. - Mike -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Renaming Cygwin DLLs
On Jan 6, 2005, at 12:09 PM, Mike Disbrow wrote: On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 03:58:39PM -0600, Mike Disbrow wrote: I'd like to build the supporting Cygwin DLLs to be renamed to something other than cyg*.dll (e.g. cygwin1.dll to foo.dll), what is the best way to build the DLLs with different names? May I ask why you want to do this? I can't think of any valid reason to rename the DLL which would not involve trying to mask the existence of Cygwin. And, I can't think of any reason for doing that which does not involve either bypassing Cygwin's GPL or trying to take credit for a DLL which you didn't develop. The motive isn't that sinister. We'll be deploying Cygwin's X Server to users and don't want the users to know whose X Server we're using. In fact, we're doing all we can to hide the fact that the application they're using is running through X. By changing the dll names we hope to make it a little harder for someone to determine we're using Cygwin's X Server so they don't get the source, and modify it in some malicious way. - Mike Ummm, an intelligent user would still figure this out.It seems that you are trying to camouflage that cygwin is being used. Security through obscurity will not stop a user. There is also more that you need to change then just the dll name. There are the registry keys, uname output, plus probably a dozen other things that I'm not aware of. What might be better is to setup the cygwin environment as admin on an NTFS partition and then make sure the user doesn't have admin privileges. That way a user wouldn't be able to change the default configuration. They still might be able to figure out how to recompile items and make them work and screw up their own environment, but nothing that an admin couldn't quickly fix. Enjoy, Peter --- A Møøse once bit my sister -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Bug: atof() can't parse NaN
Roger Leigh wrote: our_nan = atof (NaN); Which platform does this work on, for you? I wouldn't expect it to work (i.e. return a NaN), and I can't get it to work on a Linux (somewhat old, I admit) box either. Or using (hiss!) MSDEV (VC++ 2003 .NET) on a WinXP box. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Memory for large arrays in cygwin/g77
Dave Korn wrote: It may also be possible to workaround the problem by fooling around with the default stack allocation size; this can have knock-on effects which clear up the reserved area of the process' memory map that error message is complaining about. See http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-10/msg01188.html or http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-07/msg00646.html for the full gory details, and look up the -Wl,--stack= option. You might need to play around with values for the stack size until you find one that helps! Thanks for the full gory details links. They're a bit beyond me at first glance, but I will read them more carefully later. In the meantime, I can report that mucking about with the stack size via -Wl,--stack= doesn't do anything useful to increase the maximum-array size supported by Cygwin g77 and gfc. Increasing it by, say, a factor of 2 over the default (2 MiB IIRC) causes the program to exit with no error message but no output. Smaller increases might allow a few extra bytes, but no more than that. -- Mark HadfieldKa puwaha te tai nei, Hoea tatou [EMAIL PROTECTED] National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Wednesday, January 05, 2005 11:38 PM [EST], Christopher Faylor wrote: How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin fortune files? [ ] Offended. Think about the children! [ ] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. [ ] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? cgf [ X ] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values Some people say I'm too rude and crude, and very outspoken - but I'm a sysadmin/sysop. Frankly, I'd just put a warning in the package docs and leave it be. We shouldn't be forcing our views on other people. -- Brian Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
make all and make install for smake
as per C:\cygwin\home\Administrator\smake-1.2\COMPILE $ pwd /home/Administrator/smake-1.2 $ make all NOTICE: Using bootstrap 'Makefile' to make 'all' cd psmake sh ./MAKE-all Checking for working bootstrap make... Smake release 1.2a23 (i686-pc-cygwin) Copyright (C) 1985, 87, 88, 91, 1995-2004 Jörg Schilling ./psmake/smake all == MAKING all ON SUBDIRECTORY SRCROOT/conf == MAKING all ON SUBDIRECTORY SRCROOT/inc == MAKING all ON SUBCOMPONENT SRCROOT/inc/align_test.mk == MAKING all ON SUBCOMPONENT SRCROOT/inc/avoffset.mk == MAKING all ON SUBDIRECTORY SRCROOT/lib == MAKING all ON SUBCOMPONENT SRCROOT/lib/libschily.mk == MAKING all ON SUBDIRECTORY SRCROOT/smake == MAKING all ON SUBDIRECTORY SRCROOT/man == MAKING all ON SUBDIRECTORY SRCROOT/man/man4 == MAKING all ON SUBCOMPONENT SRCROOT/man/man4/makefiles.mk == MAKING all ON SUBCOMPONENT SRCROOT/man/man4/makerules.mk $ make install make: `install' is up to date. $ smake bash: smake: command not found make all and make install suceeded, so why isn't smake a command now? tried deleting the INSTALL file, but had the same results. thanks, Thufir Hawat -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Bug: atof() can't parse NaN
On Jan 6 13:49, Shankar Unni wrote: Roger Leigh wrote: our_nan = atof (NaN); Which platform does this work on, for you? I wouldn't expect it to work (i.e. return a NaN), and I can't get it to work on a Linux (somewhat old, I admit) box either. Or using (hiss!) MSDEV (VC++ 2003 .NET) on a WinXP box. The ISO C standard expects it to work. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
script: unknown command
how is script enabled, pls? thanks, Thufir -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Argument list too long [FAQ Possibility]
Seems like this is asked about often enough to be in the FAQ. At Wednesday, January 05, 2005 2:09 PM, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Emil Rojas wrote: At 10:26 AM 1/5/2005, you wrote: On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Emil Rojas wrote: I am providing grep with a long list of files, e.g. 1200 files with about 80K characters. I get the following bash: /bin/grep: Argument list too long If I reduce the total characters to less then 32K it works fine. This list is a list of the source files in a development tree retrieved with find. a) wrong list. And what was the right list? See http://cygwin.com/lists.html#available-lists. I redirected it to the right list and set the Reply-To accordingly. I also did so for this message - please make sure your mailer respects the Reply-To header. b) try xargs. mounting per your instructions fixed the problem. Good. However, xargs is the generally used solution for this anyway -- and it's also faster since it doesn't have to build up and then parse the argument list string. I just updated to see if this announcement, Updated: findutils-4.2.10-5, http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2004-12/msg00207.html would fix it, but it does not appear to do so. c) why would findutils fix a problem with grep? I know this is not a problem under linux, and I don't remember it being a problem in earlier versions of cygwin. Is this a feature or a bug? If it is a bug, despite reading abut reporting bugs on the cygwin web site I still am totally uncertain about how one would report this bug. Guidance here would be appreciated. d) CGF suggested mount -X c:\cygwin\bin /usr/bin; mount -X c:\cygwin\bin /bin Don't know how well it'll work, but it's worth a try. What is CGF? http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#CGF. Oh, and please review http://cygwin.com/problems.html. I did, before and after, I it got me to here, as possibly the least obnoxious thing I could do. By here do you mean the cygwin-talk list? And where, pray tell, is the cygwin-talk list mentioned on that page? Or do you mean the lists.html link that mentions cygwin-talk as the list where you could be ridiculed for asking just about anything? BTW, the main cygwin list that it refers to is cygwin at cygwin dot com, which, incidentally, is the list I redirected your question to. HTH, Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total Lunar eclipse... -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Brian Bruns wrote: and leave it be. We shouldn't be forcing our views on other people. If you leave it be, then that is the view forced on other people. Jeremy C. Reed technical support remote administration http://www.pugetsoundtechnology.com/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Message from Christopher Faylor on 01/05/05 08:38 PM PT quoted: How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin fortune files? [ ] Offended. Think about the children! [ ] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. [ ] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? [X] Why keep the material?.remove from Distribution. I don't think it has anything to do with Christianity or Atheism or PC or Free Speech..or being Hip or Coolor forcing anything on anybody.. It's merely obscene crudity. If it's better suited to publication on the wall of a public toilet than on the wall of your living room, for all to ponder and appreciate, then why keep it. If someone's interest runs in that direction that interest can easily be fulfilled elsewhere. Most folks are already bombarded with enough incoming material that requires opting-out of, or in this case excising,... .when you never would have opted-in.. .if you actually had a choice up front.. bobp . -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: timer_create / POSIX non conformance ?
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, claude.roblez wrote:
The problem appears with the [timer_create] function called with a
[sigevent]
structure having its [sigev_notify] member set to [SIGEV_THREAD].
In this case, the function pointed to by the [sigev_notify_function] member
is
prototyped [void(*)(union sigval)] and should receive the [sigev_value]
member.
(according to The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 6 IEEE Std 1003.1,
2004
Edition)
On various Linux systems (Debian, Fedora...), the behaviour is appropriate.
Under Cygwin, in order to perform correctly, I have to declare my function :
static void SignalTimer(union sigval *sig)
instead of : static void SignalTimer(union sigval sig).
Actually, the function receives a pointer to the sigev_value member rather
than
the union itself.
I had a glance at the cygwin source code (file: timer.cc)
case SIGEV_THREAD:
{
pthread_t notify_thread;
debug_printf (%p starting thread, x);
int rc = pthread_create (notify_thread,
tt.evp.sigev_notify_attributes,(void * (*) (void *))
tt.evp.sigev_notify_function,tt.evp.sigev_value);
The last argument: [tt.evp.sigev_value] is probably wrong (passing an
address)
I changed this code as per the patch below. Thanks for pinpointing
where it was going wrong.
A snapshot is being generated even as I type.
cgf
Index: timer.cc
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/winsup/cygwin/timer.cc,v
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -p -r1.3 timer.cc
--- timer.cc26 Nov 2004 04:15:09 - 1.3
+++ timer.cc6 Jan 2005 14:08:03 -
@@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ timer_thread (VOID *x)
debug_printf (%p starting thread, x);
int rc = pthread_create (notify_thread,
tt.evp.sigev_notify_attributes,
(void * (*) (void *))
tt.evp.sigev_notify_function,
-tt.evp.sigev_value);
+tt.evp.sigev_value.sival_ptr);
if (rc)
{
debug_printf (thread creation failed, %E);
As far as I can see, the latest snapshot (2005-Jan-06) solves the problem
(extensive testing will follow).
Thank you for your incredibly fast reply and snapshot delivery.
Claude Roblez
I'm sure not having to debug the code had something to do with it. ;-)
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total
Lunar eclipse... -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, R.Powers wrote: Message from Christopher Faylor on 01/05/05 08:38 PM PT quoted: How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin fortune files? [ ] Offended. Think about the children! [ ] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. [ ] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? [X] Why keep the material?.remove from Distribution. which, BTW, is semantically equivalent to (not my opinion, just rephrasing the above) [X] Offended. Think about the children! so why invent a new category? I don't think it has anything to do with Christianity or Atheism or PC or Free Speech..or being Hip or Coolor forcing anything on anybody.. It's merely obscene crudity. If it's better suited to publication on the wall of a public toilet than on the wall of your living room, for all to ponder and appreciate, then why keep it. If someone's interest runs in that direction that interest can easily be fulfilled elsewhere. Most folks are already bombarded with enough incoming material that requires opting-out of, or in this case excising,... .when you never would have opted-in.. .if you actually had a choice up front.. Huh? We're talking about *fortune* here. You had to *install* the package to get the files -- how's that not opting in? Not only that, you'd have to *run* the fortune command to get the limericks -- they won't be /forced/ on you. It's a bug, people! Let's fix it and move on! Igor P.S. FWIW, I agree that it should be moved to the -o (ROT13) category. -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total Lunar eclipse... -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Jeremy C. Reed wrote: On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Brian Bruns wrote: and leave it be. We shouldn't be forcing our views on other people. If you leave it be, then that is the view forced on other people. No view is forced. People must make an effort to find it. If said person doesn't want it then don't go looking for it. -- Help Wanted: Telepath. You know where to apply. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, R.Powers wrote: I don't think it has anything to do with Christianity or Atheism or PC or Free Speech..or being Hip or Coolor forcing anything on anybody.. It's merely obscene crudity. If it's better suited to publication on the wall of a public toilet than on the wall of your living room, for all to ponder and appreciate, then why keep it. That already carries a judgment reflecting your values. Certainly the people who included them in fortune thought otherwise. If someone's interest runs in that direction that interest can easily be fulfilled elsewhere. You can say that about many other components of cygwin (say, games). For the record, I am for the pro-choice option of making it -o. Rodrigo -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Brian Bruns wrote: and leave it be. We shouldn't be forcing our views on other people. If you leave it be, then that is the view forced on other people. If I am not mistaken, Brian had written something above that about warning people in advance. This would prevent it from being forced on people. Rodrigo -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Argument list too long [FAQ Possibility]
I've noticed the 32K limitation for a long time now (few years at least). Never really thought too much about it though because I also assumed that it was because lpCommandLine in CreateProcess() maxed out at 32,000 characters (at least according to the msdn documentation). Of course, that assumption was also made without looking at the cygwin source code to see how any of it is implemented so I could very well be wrong on that one. And if so, I probably should have just kept my mouth shut! Sean On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 17:46:37 -0500, Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seems like this is asked about often enough to be in the FAQ. At Wednesday, January 05, 2005 2:09 PM, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Emil Rojas wrote: At 10:26 AM 1/5/2005, you wrote: On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Emil Rojas wrote: I am providing grep with a long list of files, e.g. 1200 files with about 80K characters. I get the following bash: /bin/grep: Argument list too long If I reduce the total characters to less then 32K it works fine. This list is a list of the source files in a development tree retrieved with find. a) wrong list. And what was the right list? See http://cygwin.com/lists.html#available-lists. I redirected it to the right list and set the Reply-To accordingly. I also did so for this message - please make sure your mailer respects the Reply-To header. b) try xargs. mounting per your instructions fixed the problem. Good. However, xargs is the generally used solution for this anyway -- and it's also faster since it doesn't have to build up and then parse the argument list string. I just updated to see if this announcement, Updated: findutils-4.2.10-5, http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2004-12/msg00207.html would fix it, but it does not appear to do so. c) why would findutils fix a problem with grep? I know this is not a problem under linux, and I don't remember it being a problem in earlier versions of cygwin. Is this a feature or a bug? If it is a bug, despite reading abut reporting bugs on the cygwin web site I still am totally uncertain about how one would report this bug. Guidance here would be appreciated. d) CGF suggested mount -X c:\cygwin\bin /usr/bin; mount -X c:\cygwin\bin /bin Don't know how well it'll work, but it's worth a try. What is CGF? http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#CGF. Oh, and please review http://cygwin.com/problems.html. I did, before and after, I it got me to here, as possibly the least obnoxious thing I could do. By here do you mean the cygwin-talk list? And where, pray tell, is the cygwin-talk list mentioned on that page? Or do you mean the lists.html link that mentions cygwin-talk as the list where you could be ridiculed for asking just about anything? BTW, the main cygwin list that it refers to is cygwin at cygwin dot com, which, incidentally, is the list I redirected your question to. HTH, Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total Lunar eclipse... -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Ah jeez deFaria: Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:54:16 -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: My write-in candidate: [x] Not offended. Clean it up anyway. It's unprofessional in the extreme and can only result in embarassment and trouble. As a Christian, I agree with Gary. :) I actually think it's an upstream bug. The limerick file meets the offensive category and so, according to the notes file, should be limerick-o and be rot-13 encrypted (then we can throw the DMCA at offended people, too). Looks like fortune is due for an update to the /usr/share/doc/ FHS standard anyway. There is plenty of 1st Amendment content on the Internet, but let people get it elsewhere. As an atheist I always wonder why christians can turn the other cheek but cannot seem to muster how to turn their eyes away! As a thinking man, I always wonder why atheists: 1. Hate Christianity, yet harbor no such hatred towards all the other religions. 2. Would squeal bloody murder if fortune spit out Bible verses, yet are *proponents* of having it spit out outrageously profane limericks which are offensive to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Men, Women, Children, Mothers, Fathers, Bosses, Frenchmen, and all breeds of dog in between. If you don't like it then what stops you from simply not looking at it! Is something forcing you to use fortune or Cygwin or open and look at the contents of that file?!? Is something telling me that fortune is loaded with material completely inappropriate for work environments, material which could conceivably even directly result in harassment claims? Answer there is no my friend. [x] Because of the hub bub raised by the religious folk I had to download and check it out whereas if they just ignored it so would have I, proofing, once again, that by doing this they just draw more attention to it and cause more harm than good. Ok, so you have actually been harmed by this. While I haven't, I can certainly agree with you that this profanity needs excision post haste. -- E Pluribus Modem Ok, that doesn't even make sense. -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Wednesday, January 05, 2005 11:38 PM [EST], Christopher Faylor wrote: How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin fortune files? [ ] Offended. Think about the children! [ ] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. [ ] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? cgf [ X ] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values Some people say I'm too rude and crude, and very outspoken - but I'm a sysadmin/sysop. Frankly, I'd just put a warning in the package docs and leave it be. We shouldn't be forcing our views on other people. ...unless they're profane? -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
The problem seems simple to me. A filthy Limerick is not a Fortune. The program is misnamed. Call it something else or just put fortunes in it. Confucius say: Man who have sex on ground have Peace on Earth. Can it be that simple? -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Christopher Faylor wrote: How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin fortune files? [ ] Offended. Think about the children! [ ] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. [ ] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? [ ] Not offended but still don't think it should be in the distro. Think about the children! And the liability! -- Chuck -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Andy, Andy, Andy: Jeremy C. Reed wrote: On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Brian Bruns wrote: and leave it be. We shouldn't be forcing our views on other people. If you leave it be, then that is the view forced on other people. No view is forced. People must make an effort to find it. If said person doesn't want it then don't go looking for it. I made no effort to find Cygwinized profanity. I stumbled across a program named fortune one day, which I was told printed out corny sayings etc, and installed it. Then I forgot about it. Then, some time later, I was told that what I thought was a program written with good clean fun in mind was in fact loaded with enough potty mouth to make even *me* blush. Good thing I didn't install it at work, and that I don't work at a Megacorp that has whole departments devoted to rooting through peoples' files looking for reasons to fire them. -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, R.Powers wrote: I don't think it has anything to do with Christianity or Atheism or PC or Free Speech..or being Hip or Coolor forcing anything on anybody.. It's merely obscene crudity. If it's better suited to publication on the wall of a public toilet than on the wall of your living room, for all to ponder and appreciate, then why keep it. That already carries a judgment reflecting your values. Certainly the people who included them in fortune thought otherwise. If they had thought otherwise, they wouldn't have included them in the first place. As a licensed nerd mind-reader, I can tell you exactly the thought process involved here: Teeeheeeheee! I'm gonna add a bunch of dirty limericks to my program! That'll compensate for my inability to obtain sex! If someone's interest runs in that direction that interest can easily be fulfilled elsewhere. You can say that about many other components of cygwin (say, games). No you can't. Unless, say games, includes similar obscenity. Jesus Tapdancing Christ you people, did I accidentally stumble into a junior highschool or something? -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
Corinna Vinschen wrote: That's cool. Thanks for doing this. The way you do it is probably the best alternative. I would find it very annoying if the offensive jokes would just go away. It doesn't matter if one loves or hates these jokes, or if somebody feels offended. It's a matter of free choice. Nobody has to read them, after all. Yes and no, Corinna. Merely having them on the harddrive in a company computer could be construed as creating a hostile work environment -- leading to liability issues for the company and employment issues for the unsuspecting cygwin user. I think the ROT13/-o is an OK compromise -- but IANAL, and some lawyer somewhere could probably make a case over this. Or claim to be able to do so, leading to those employment issues I mentioned. ROT13/-o plus separating the xxx files into a separate package would be even better; then, it's on yer own head if you install fortune-xxx. I'm definitely going to have to uninstall the fortune package at work -- probably even if the xxx content is encrypted. My employer is lenient enough when it comes to rogue cygwin installations (e.g. not installed by the IT guys) but they'll get downright annoyed if employees create a liability problem for them by installing something that might offend another employee (e.g create a hostile work environment) Not a big deal; I can live without fortune at work. But even tho *I* don't care, my employer does -- and the computer belongs to them. -- Chuck -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Obscene Content Tiebreaker
Ok, clearly the voting process is hopelessly flawed. When will people learn: Democracy doesn't work. /Homer So, in the interest of putting this mess to bed once and for all, I ask you all to consider: WWRHD? That's right, What Would Red Hat Do?. But please don't speculate, there's no need. We simply need a favor from Corinna: Corinna, could you please forward this issue to Red Hat's legal department, for their opinion on whether the company wishes to continue to shoulder this heretofore undiscovered liability? We've all heard the stories of folks being fired for pr0n at work, it's no great stretch to imagine the obscenity at hand being used as an excuse to fire somebody with cause, and no further stretch to envision a subsequent lawsuit directed towards the outfit carrying the bulk of the (c)'s to Cygwin. -- Gary R. Van Sickle Brewer. Patriot. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: [snip] Jesus Tapdancing Christ you people, did I accidentally stumble into a junior highschool or something? Heh. You *just* noticed? :-D Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total Lunar eclipse... -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:13:40PM -0800, Raye Raskin wrote: The problem seems simple to me. A filthy Limerick is not a Fortune. The program is misnamed. Hmm. Ever heard of grep or ls? Fortune is much closer to being named something that makes sense than several other programs in the distribution. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: [snip] Jesus Tapdancing Christ you people, did I accidentally stumble into a junior highschool or something? Heh. You *just* noticed? :-D Igor BHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAH!! Touche, mon ami! Touche! -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
Charles Wilson wrote: Yes and no, Corinna. Merely having them on the harddrive in a company computer could be construed as creating a hostile work environment -- leading to liability issues for the company and employment issues for the unsuspecting cygwin user. Any company firing me for creating a hostile work environment for such a matter as this is, in my book, not a company I wish to work for. YMMV. I'm definitely going to have to uninstall the fortune package at work -- probably even if the xxx content is encrypted. My employer is lenient enough when it comes to rogue cygwin installations (e.g. not installed by the IT guys) but they'll get downright annoyed if employees create a liability problem for them by installing something that might offend another employee (e.g create a hostile work environment) What the hell is some other employee doing snooping around your computer to view these files?!? To me *that's* a hostile work environment created by the snooping employee! -- Earth First! We'll stripmine the other planets later. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene Content Tiebreaker
Has anyone who is concerned about this read some of the, shall we say, less than pure comments that developers will on occasion put into comments in their code? I have come across a few that are, at very least, very rude, if not downright indecent (depending on where you draw the line of indecency). Is Red Hat (or, for that matter, the maintainers of an open-source rich software distribution of any kind that carries programs that require distribution of source code) supposed to either not use GPLed or similarly licensed programs that contain ribald language in comments, or to perform such a level of policing that they would have to have several people devoted to that project alone? As an aside, I also think that it has nothing to do with why I use Cygwin or why I am on the Cygwin mailing list. It is nearly beyond my comprehension that I allowed myself to even post on the subject. If you don't like the fortunes, don't install them. Now, can we please drop this? PLEASE? Bill Knox Lead Operating Systems Programmer/Analyst The MITRE Corporation On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 20:48:33 -0600 From: Gary R. Van Sickle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Obscene Content Tiebreaker Ok, clearly the voting process is hopelessly flawed. When will people learn: Democracy doesn't work. /Homer So, in the interest of putting this mess to bed once and for all, I ask you all to consider: WWRHD? That's right, What Would Red Hat Do?. But please don't speculate, there's no need. We simply need a favor from Corinna: Corinna, could you please forward this issue to Red Hat's legal department, for their opinion on whether the company wishes to continue to shoulder this heretofore undiscovered liability? We've all heard the stories of folks being fired for pr0n at work, it's no great stretch to imagine the obscenity at hand being used as an excuse to fire somebody with cause, and no further stretch to envision a subsequent lawsuit directed towards the outfit carrying the bulk of the (c)'s to Cygwin. -- Gary R. Van Sickle Brewer. Patriot. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote Ah jeez deFaria: That's clever! Did you come up with that all by your lonesome? As an atheist I always wonder why christians can turn the other cheek but cannot seem to muster how to turn their eyes away! As a thinking man, I always wonder why atheists: 1. Hate Christianity, yet harbor no such hatred towards all the other religions. I said not such thing. I think all religions are equally ridiculous! But if you wish to partake in the fantasy then by all means do. 2. Would squeal bloody murder if fortune spit out Bible verses, yet are *proponents* of having it spit out outrageously profane limericks which are offensive to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Men, Women, Children, Mothers, Fathers, Bosses, Frenchmen, and all breeds of dog in between. I wouldn't squeal bloody murder. I'd simply say it's stupid. Fortune already spits out a number of stupid things as well as some quite funny things. If you don't like it then what stops you from simply not looking at it! Is something forcing you to use fortune or Cygwin or open and look at the contents of that file?!? Is something telling me that fortune is loaded with material completely inappropriate for work environments, material which could conceivably even directly result in harassment claims? Answer there is no my friend. Only if you'd claim harassment on yourself. To me anybody poking into my machine deserves what they find. [x] Because of the hub bub raised by the religious folk I had to download and check it out whereas if they just ignored it so would have I, proofing, once again, that by doing this they just draw more attention to it and cause more harm than good. Ok, so you have actually been harmed by this. Whoever said that?!? While I haven't, I can certainly agree with you that this profanity needs excision post haste. Then you don't agree with me because I don't think it need excision. Oh and this randomly chosen signature is appropo! -- 11th commandment - Covet not thy neighbor's Pentium. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
- Original Message - From: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: cygwin@cygwin.com Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 6:57 PM Subject: Re: Obscene content in cygwin file. On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:13:40PM -0800, Raye Raskin wrote: The problem seems simple to me. A filthy Limerick is not a Fortune. The program is misnamed. Hmm. Ever heard of grep or ls? Fortune is much closer to being named something that makes sense than several other programs in the distribution. cgf If grep were named delete and everyone lived with it, then I could understand with your analogy. But the way it is, I can't. Maybe someone should ask Torvald, not Red Hat. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
Charles Wilson wrote: Yes and no, Corinna. Merely having them on the harddrive in a company computer could be construed as creating a hostile work environment -- leading to liability issues for the company and employment issues for the unsuspecting cygwin user. Any company firing me for creating a hostile work environment for such a matter as this is, in my book, not a company I wish to work for. YMMV. Nor I. In fact, I doubt many would disagree. But then, many have mouths to feed, and may not have the luxury of wishing. I'm definitely going to have to uninstall the fortune package at work -- probably even if the xxx content is encrypted. My employer is lenient enough when it comes to rogue cygwin installations (e.g. not installed by the IT guys) but they'll get downright annoyed if employees create a liability problem for them by installing something that might offend another employee (e.g create a hostile work environment) What the hell is some other employee doing snooping around your computer to view these files?!? To me *that's* a hostile work environment created by the snooping employee! Welcome to the 21st century Andrew. -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: If it's better suited to publication on the wall of a public toilet than on the wall of your living room, for all to ponder and appreciate, then why keep it. That already carries a judgment reflecting your values. Certainly the people who included them in fortune thought otherwise. If they had thought otherwise, they wouldn't have included them in the first place. How can you say that? You have no evidence to suggest otherwise. On the contrary the mere fact that they included them suggest that they disagree with your viewpoint. As a licensed nerd mind-reader, Please show your license! I can tell you exactly the thought process involved here: Teeeheeeheee! I'm gonna add a bunch of dirty limericks to my program! That'll compensate for my inability to obtain sex! Sorry you haven't that sex problem there George... -- Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 07:12:57PM -0800, Raye Raskin wrote: - Original Message - From: Christopher Faylor Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 6:57 PM Subject: Re: Obscene content in cygwin file. On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:13:40PM -0800, Raye Raskin wrote: The problem seems simple to me. A filthy Limerick is not a Fortune. The program is misnamed. Hmm. Ever heard of grep or ls? Fortune is much closer to being named something that makes sense than several other programs in the distribution. If grep were named delete and everyone lived with it, then I could understand with your analogy. But the way it is, I can't. Huh? The name fortune is close to what it does. It sort of displays fortune cookie like stuff. Labelling a program like grep with a English word that has no bearing on its functionality is not a correct analogy. Maybe someone should ask Torvald, not Red Hat. Now you've really lost me. Do you think that Linus Torvalds has something to do with grep, ls, delete, or fortune? All of those certainly predate his first exposure to UNIX by many years. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene Content Tiebreaker
William R. Knox: Has anyone who is concerned about this read some of the, shall we say, less than pure comments that developers will on occasion put into comments in their code? I once submitted a patch to Setup that contained a comment to the effect of: ...and people in Hell want icewater The comment was rejected on the grounds that it might offend someone. While to this day I can't imagine how that could get anybody's panties in a bind, it was a legitimate concern and a legitimate rejection. If you don't like the fortunes, don't install them. Now, can we please drop this? PLEASE? Why? If you don't like these posts, don't read them. -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: I made no effort to find Cygwinized profanity. I stumbled across a program named fortune one day, which I was told printed out corny sayings etc, and installed it. Then I forgot about it. Then, some time later, I was told that what I thought was a program written with good clean fun in mind was in fact loaded with enough potty mouth to make even *me* blush. There's a lot of mispellings in there too. Should I post patches here for the maintainer to fix up or pass up the chain to fix? It's just a rhetorical question. :-) -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Any company firing me for creating a hostile work environment for such a matter as this is, in my book, not a company I wish to work for. YMMV. Nor I. In fact, I doubt many would disagree. But then, many have mouths to feed, and may not have the luxury of wishing. Then you have no sense of self-worth. Sorry to hear that. What the hell is some other employee doing snooping around your computer to view these files?!? To me *that's* a hostile work environment created by the snooping employee! Welcome to the 21st century Andrew. This has nothing to do with what year it is. It's simple common sense. Granted some employers don't have that but some do. I choose to work for the latter. -- Will the information superhighway have any rest stops? -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
- Original Message - From: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: cygwin@cygwin.com Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 7:21 PM Subject: Re: Obscene content in cygwin file. On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 07:12:57PM -0800, Raye Raskin wrote: - Original Message - From: Christopher Faylor Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 6:57 PM Subject: Re: Obscene content in cygwin file. On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:13:40PM -0800, Raye Raskin wrote: The problem seems simple to me. A filthy Limerick is not a Fortune. The program is misnamed. Hmm. Ever heard of grep or ls? Fortune is much closer to being named something that makes sense than several other programs in the distribution. If grep were named delete and everyone lived with it, then I could understand with your analogy. But the way it is, I can't. Huh? The name fortune is close to what it does. It sort of displays fortune cookie like stuff. Labelling a program like grep with a English word that has no bearing on its functionality is not a correct analogy. Sorry my remarks went over your head. I don't think a filthy limerick is in any way sort of like a fortune. Do you? Let me state for the record: I have no problem whatsoever the way the fortune program currently works or what it outputs. Maybe someone should ask Torvald, not Red Hat. Now you've really lost me. Do you think that Linus Torvalds has something to do with grep, ls, delete, or fortune? All of those certainly predate his first exposure to UNIX by many years. My dad always told me If you have to explain them, they're probably no good. So I'll stop. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Any company firing me for creating a hostile work environment for such a matter as this is, in my book, not a company I wish to work for. YMMV. Nor I. In fact, I doubt many would disagree. But then, many have mouths to feed, and may not have the luxury of wishing. Then you have no sense of self-worth. Sorry to hear that. 1. ? 2. Kiss my fortune-o, DeFaria. What the hell is some other employee doing snooping around your computer to view these files?!? To me *that's* a hostile work environment created by the snooping employee! Welcome to the 21st century Andrew. This has nothing to do with what year it is. Yeah, it does. For the first time in history, there are now two lawyers for every human on the planet. Lawyers subsist almost entirely on a diet of lawsuits. Lawsuits themselves have now evolved to the point where they can sometimes even grow in places which defy common sense. It's simple common sense. In a world where McDonalds loses a bajillion-dollar lawsuit because its coffee is hot, common sense is a thing of the past my naive friend. Granted some employers don't have that but some do. I choose to work for the latter. Pray you know your employer as well as you believe you do. Oh, right, you're an atheist. -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
