Re: How do I get an old version of cygwin?

[Doctor Bill]

What I would try is:

  1. Rename the cygwin on my machine.
  2. Save and then erase the cygwin registry settings.
  3. Copy their whole cygwin installation and registry settings to your machine.
  4. Use setup to download the source packages you need that are not available
  in their distribution.
  5. Cross my fingers and hope the source packages build with the
older versions of
  the libraries.
  6. Cross my fingers and build the application.

Bill



On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:26:40 -0500, Larry Hall
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 06:11 PM 1/17/2005, you wrote:
> >My company has a small program that we use to pull data from files on 
> >multiple OSes.
> >We use the latest version of cygwin on our own internal computers to run 
> >under windows systems and this works fine.
> >
> >However, one of our clients has an old version of cygwin that uses the 1.5.4 
> >DLL.  This is a DLL on a production box over which we have no control.  The 
> >client themselves just installs the product from another vendor and it just 
> >works.  This is not a full version of the cygwin install.  There are no 
> >build tools on this box.
> >
> >My problem is that to support this client I need to get an install of cygwin 
> >1.5.4 onto a windows box so I can compile our program to run on their 
> >production server.
> >
> >I have tried to compile and just install the executable on their machine and 
> >that doesn't work; the DLL is the wrong version.   I have tried copying 
> >their DLL over onto my box and get the error; all my installed tools 
> >complain that there is a wrong DLL installed.
> >
> >So, what I need is to install the exact DLL and build tools, all at the same 
> >time onto a box.  I am willing to do a checkout and build from CVS if 
> >pointed to the directions on how to do this.
> >
> >Thanks in advance!
> 
> Sounds like you're out of luck then, unless someone out there has an
> entire distribution on CD circa Cygwin package version 1.5.4 or you
> rebuild all the tools you need to match that DLL.  You're probably
> better off convincing the client to update.  Either that, or get them
> to provide you the environment you need to support them.
> 
> --
> Larry Hall  http://www.rfk.com
> RFK Partners, Inc.  (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
> 838 Washington Street   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
> Holliston, MA 01746 
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Getting latest version of cygwin1.dll

[Doctor Bill]

Of course.  And if you were charging for your services, they would be
right.  The customer is always right.  (Within reason.)  But when you
are volunteering your time and efforts, it is reasonable to expect
that you expect at minimum some common courtesy and appreciation for
your effort.  Just for the record, I for one really appreciate your
efforts, and the efforts of everyone else working so hard to not only
provide a great software like cygwin for free, but even provide free
help for those who need it.

Thank You Very Much!

Bill


On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:35:29 -0500, Christopher Faylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 05:29:31PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
> 
> 
> >Darkfalz wrote:
> >>When I go to the main website, ALL I want to do is get the latest
> >>cygwin1.dll file. You SHOULD have a link to a zip containing it on the
> >>main
> >>page.
> >>
> >>But no, instead you offer your stupid installer, or you offer a page to
> >>browse packages, but what do the packages contain? TEXT LISTING OF FILES
> >>WHICH AREN'T EVEN THERE!
> >>
> >>Why do you have to make it so freaking hard for people who only need the
> >>dll
> >>to run cygwin programs?
> >
> >I pity people who think ranting rudely is a good way to persuade people to
> >be more accomodating to their needs.
> 
> It's funny.  I have been trying to make exactly this point over in the
> cygwin-xfree list, too.
> 
> Apparently, it's ok for people asking for help to be rude.  The people
> providing the help, however, are supposed to take the rudeness as
> constructive criticism and thoughtfully consider every rude request as a
> learning opportunity.
> 
> 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/
> 
>

--
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: new cygwin has memory problems?

[Doctor Bill]

In regards to adding code to support coLinux, I don't see why that
would be neccessary.  coLinux doesn't need to talk to cygwin.  Except
for older versions, coLinux is not built on cygwin.

If someone is really interested, as part of the coLinux tools I wrote
set of functions for querying cygwin paths from a non-cygwin
executable.   It does so by calling a cygwin executable to convert
paths.  If the executable fails, it assumes the cygwin.dll has not
been installed.

I would not recommend adding it to cygwin, because it would be
pointless.  If you know someone has installed cygwin to install the
tool, then there is no reason not to link to the cygwin.dll directly. 
However, the tool is open source, so people are free to use it for
their non-cygwin, but cygwin compatible open source projects.

Bill


On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:38:32 -0500, Christopher Faylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 01:07:03PM +0100, Reini Urban wrote:
> 
> 
> >Christopher Faylor schrieb:
> >>On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 05:58:00PM +0100, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
> >>>Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >Hey cool, you have top?
> >
> >$ top
> >bash: top: command not found
> >
> >Where can I get it?
> 
> http://cygwin.com/cgi-bin2/package-cat.cgi?file=procps%2Fprocps-010801-2&grep=top%5C.exe
> >>>
> >>>I really need to install this package, thanks.
> >>
> >>Just to fruitlessly stifle the next question from anyone else who
> >>has just found out about this package:
> >>
> >>No, there is no way to make top or procps display non-cygwin processes.
> >
> >For everything there's a way. The question is if it's worth the effort.
> >
> >For example I'm now seriously considering exporting a procfs to native
> >windows, just to play with installable filesystems.
> 
> I didn't say it was impossible.  It's not even hard.  It just doesn't
> work now.
> 
> >To improve mount and to get cygwin better talk to colinux.
> 
> I don't think we want to add any colinux features to cygwin.  Maybe
> Corinna will disagree but I don't see any reason to add one byte of
> extra code to cygwin to handle colinux.
> 
> 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/
> 
>

--
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: updating to latest cygwin broke X

[Doctor Bill]

Christopher, sometimes it is a good idea to look past the immediate
request.  While the question is not necessarily appropriate for this
list, there is an answer that is appropriate for this list.

Stephen, here is what you can do to resolve your problem.

1. Collect as much information you can and send it to the cygwin-xfree list.

2. Run setup.  When you get to the package selection list you will
notice a set of radio buttons at the top of the Window.  Select
"prev".  Now go to "X11" and select "INSTALL".  This should replace
all your X11 files with the previous version.

3. Monitor the cygwin-xfree group until you see the problem is
resolved.   Assist if you are able.

4. Once the problem has been resolved, and the solution has been
propagated to the mirrors run setup again and install the current
version.

Bill


On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:41:20 -0500, Christopher Faylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 10:07:33PM -0600, Gabi wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 10:43:42PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>The mailing list for cygwin/x is cygwin-xfree at cygwin dot com.
> >
> >I do not know about you Cristopher, but if there is something broken
> >with the update, I would like to read about it here, instead of going
> >to look to other specialized mailing lists.  You know, just as a
> >warning signal...
> 
> You don't have to know about me.  Read the words at
> http://cygwin.com/lists.html.  This list isn't for X problems.  The
> problem reported was not a problem with the new DLL.  It was some
> kind of X installation problem.
> --
> Christopher Faylor  spammer? -> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cygwin Co-Project Leader[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> TimeSys, 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/
> 
>

--
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: http://rateless.com/ GPL violation?

[Doctor Bill]

You misunderstand the GPL.  The GPL does not grant you a right to the
source code, it creates a responsibility for them to give your the
source code.

I know it sounds like the same thing, but it isn't.  If you had a
legal right to the source code, you could then sue them for a copy. 
But since instead they have a responsibility, only the copyright
holder has the right to sue them to force them to carry out their
responsibility.  i.e. RedHat.  But RedHat already offers alternative
licensing for those willing to pay for it.  So if I were a RedHat
lawyer, I would probably sue for the license fee and punitive damages
rather than distribution of the source code as it would be a much
easier case to win and to settle out of court.

So chances are you will never see the source code unless rateless.com
decides to release it.

Bill


On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:24:33 +0100, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   They can remove it from their website if they like, but it's too late.  As long
> as I am in posession of a binary of a GPL'd program, I have a non-negotiable right
> to a copy of the very same sources from which the binary I have was compiled.
> There are no if's or but's.
> 
>   Of course, I Am Not A Lawyer, So Everything I Have Said Can Be Safely Ignored.

--
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: http://rateless.com/ GPL violation?

[Doctor Bill]

It looks like it is up to RedHat lawyers to decide if they wish to
enforce their license.

Bill


On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:54:32 +0300, Jani Tiainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 01:59:12PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> >>Does anyone know if there is source code available for the binary
> >>downloads from ?
> >>
> >>I've sent a message requesting that they provide source code for their
> >>programs but it seems like this is YA case of someone assuming that they
> >>get to use cygwin without paying attention to the cygwin license?
> >
> >
> > Ah.  I see the sources will be available "shortly".
> >
> > I'm looking for the word "shortly" in the GPL now.  Hmm.  Can't seem to
> > find it...
> 
> And if you look their "Rateless Public License", it violates licence of
> GPL that permits modifiction, selling etc. as far as sources are
> provided for further modifications.
> 
> --
> 
> Jani Tiainen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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: File permission problem

[Doctor Bill]

Does smbntsec work if the file system is shared from a Win9x machine? 
If so, where are the NT ACL's stored?

Bill


On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:42:05 -0700, Andrew DeFaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> 
> > On Sep 24 02:36, Brian Dessent wrote:
> >
> >> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sep 24 01:43, Brian Dessent wrote:
> >>>
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > No, it is an NTFS on a network drive. Is it related?
> 
>  Yes. You probably lack the SeRestorePrivilege right on your login
>  token, or for some strange reason you have nosmbntsec set. RTFM:
>  
> >>>
> >>> nosmbntsec is default.
> >>
> >> If this is true then the docs need to be updated, or at least clarified.
> >>
> >> "(no)smbntsec - if set, use ntsec on remote drives as well (this is the
> >> default)."
> >
> >
> > Urgh. This is how I intended to implement it when I did ... three
> > years ago? Dunno anymore, but nosmbntsec is default already for ages.
> >
> > I've changed the documentation.
> 
> I'm trying to understand why one would want ntsec on by default and
> smbntsec off by default?
> --
> The Definition of an Upgrade: Take old bugs out, put new ones in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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: File permission problem

[Doctor Bill]

I just verified the umask patch is still in place:

$ (umask 000;ls -la /cygdrive/c/IO.SYS);(umask 077;ls -la /cygdrive/c/IO.SYS)
-rwxr-xr-x1 docbill  None   222390 Apr 23  1999 /cygdrive/c/IO.SYS
-rwx--1 docbill  None   222390 Apr 23  1999 /cygdrive/c/IO.SYS

So if your problem is that you are using Win9x, &/or FAT32 you are in
luck.  The remaining question is if this works for network mounts with
Win9x

  Bill



On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:36:31 -0400, Doctor Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think about a year ago there was a patch added to the cygwin core to
> allow you to use 'umask' to change apparent permissions on a FAT32
> partition.  The idea was you could then do something like:
> 
> umask 077; ssh foo.bar.com
> 
> I do not know if this code is still in the cygwin libraries, and if it
> will solve your problem.
> 
>  Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:52:21 -0400, Larry Hall
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At 09:59 PM 9/23/2004, you wrote:
> > >Dear all,
> > >
> > >I have try to generate a private key file so that I don't need
> > >to enter password everytime I "ssh" to a remote machine. However, "ssh"
> > >complaints me about the permission of key file. I don't know why "chmod"
> > >always return 666 or 444 even I want to change the file to 600 or 400.
> > >
> > >Does anymore have idea? Thanks.
> >
> >
> > Does this describe your situation?
> >
> > Why doesn't chmod work?
> > <http://cygwin.com/faq/faq_toc.html#TOC41>
> >
> > --
> > Larry Hall  http://www.rfk.com
> > RFK Partners, Inc.  (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
> > 838 Washington Street   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
> > Holliston, MA 01746
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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: File permission problem

[Doctor Bill]

I think about a year ago there was a patch added to the cygwin core to
allow you to use 'umask' to change apparent permissions on a FAT32
partition.  The idea was you could then do something like:

umask 077; ssh foo.bar.com

I do not know if this code is still in the cygwin libraries, and if it
will solve your problem.

 Bill



On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:52:21 -0400, Larry Hall
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 09:59 PM 9/23/2004, you wrote:
> >Dear all,
> >
> >I have try to generate a private key file so that I don't need
> >to enter password everytime I "ssh" to a remote machine. However, "ssh"
> >complaints me about the permission of key file. I don't know why "chmod"
> >always return 666 or 444 even I want to change the file to 600 or 400.
> >
> >Does anymore have idea? Thanks.
> 
> 
> Does this describe your situation?
> 
> Why doesn't chmod work?
> 
> 
> --
> Larry Hall  http://www.rfk.com
> RFK Partners, Inc.  (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
> 838 Washington Street   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
> Holliston, MA 01746 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Running cmd programs in cygwin / rxvt

[Doctor Bill]

I know, this thread is so far off topic it is silly.  To bad a
moderator can't retroactively kill messages to a mailing list...  BTW.
 I think I was wrong, it was Saturday Night Live.  TGFTM (Thank
Goodness For Threaded Mail).

 Bill

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:11:28 -0700, Karl M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All...
> 
> >I am curious, though.  Apparently it was the "dessert topping" comment
> >that was considered rude?  Everyone understands the reference, right?
> 
> Yes...Should each of us answer the question individually? (:>)
> 
> _
> Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and
> more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Running cmd programs in cygwin / rxvt

[Doctor Bill]

The Carol Burnett Show:

01/10/1976, Is it a dessert topping or a floor wax? "Saturday Night
Live's" Chevy Chase delivers the good news that new "Shimmer" is both


On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:10:02 -0400, Doctor Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Monty Python?  Hmmm.  I thought it was a reference to the Carol
> Barnett Show.  I remember a skit which was a fake commercial arguing
> if something was a desert topping or a floor wax.  The answer was
> both.  How convenient...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:53:06 +0100, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> > > Sent: 21 September 2004 16:40
> >
> > > I am curious, though.  Apparently it was the "dessert topping" comment
> > > that was considered rude?  Everyone understands the reference, right?
> >
> >
> >   Had to google it, I admit.  We don't get to see much SNL over here.
> > Shoulda thrown a monty python reference our way if you wanted us limeys to
> > catch it!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
>

--
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: Running cmd programs in cygwin / rxvt

[Doctor Bill]

Monty Python?  Hmmm.  I thought it was a reference to the Carol
Barnett Show.  I remember a skit which was a fake commercial arguing
if something was a desert topping or a floor wax.  The answer was
both.  How convenient...




On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:53:06 +0100, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> > Sent: 21 September 2004 16:40
> 
> > I am curious, though.  Apparently it was the "dessert topping" comment
> > that was considered rude?  Everyone understands the reference, right?
> 
> 
>   Had to google it, I admit.  We don't get to see much SNL over here.
> Shoulda thrown a monty python reference our way if you wanted us limeys to
> catch it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
>

--
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: Why umount -A is a really bad idea

[Doctor Bill]

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

Bill


On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:48:38 +0200, Reini Urban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Igor Pechtchanski schrieb:
> > On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Mike wrote:
> >>On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Colin JN Breame wrote:
> >>>I tried this once, just to see what would happen.  I then spent the
> >>>next hour restoring the mount points.  I've learnt a valuable
> >>>lesson...
> >>
> >>Why would a 'mount -a' not work after your 'umount -a' to restore the
> >>mounts?
> >>
> >>Mike
> >
> > Because Cygwin's mounts aren't the same as Unix mounts.  The mount and
> > umount commands on Cygwin modify the mount table directly, so that a
> > umount really is permanent.  However (and this concerns the OP, too), you
> > can save the mount table as the output of "mount -m", which you can later
> > use to restore the mounts.
> 
> not really.
> I used to do that quite often, but since /bin and /usr/bin are not known
> to cygwin anymore after umount -a (and not in the path) I came with this
> workaround.
> 
> #!/bin/sh
> # save mounts
> BIN=`cygpath -w /bin | sed 's||/|g'`
> mount -m | sed "s|^mount|$BIN/mount|" | tee savemounts
> umount -a
> 
> # nano or $EDITOR will not work now to fix savemounts!
> 
> # restore
> .. savemounts
> 
> it will look like "f:/cygnus/bin/mount" now. This will be found, on NT
> at least.
> 
> 
> > For those unfortunate enough to have done a "umount -a" without saving the
> > mounts via "mount -m", the minimum necessary mounts for Cygwin to work are
> >
> > mount -sbc /cygdrive
> > mount -fsb c:/cygwin /
> > mount -fsb c:/cygwin/bin /usr/bin
> > mount -fsb c:/cygwin/lib /usr/lib
> >
> > (that is provided that you installed Cygwin in c:/cygwin).
> --
> 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/
> 
>

--
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/