Re: new cygwin package: gsl
Teun Burgers wrote: > I think this only affects the source package. I uploaded a new version > of that. > (You might have to reload the URL in order to avoid looking at a cached > copy) > > http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/ar.burgers/gsl-1.1.1-1-src.tar.bz2 > > This is the new setup.hint: > > category: Libs > requires: cygwin > sdesc:"the GNU Scientific Library" > ldesc:"the GNU Scientific Library, a collection of numerical > routines for scientific computing." thanks. uploaded -- please wait 24 hours or so, and then send an announcement to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. See http://cygwin.com/setup.html for information on how to format that message. --Chuck
Re: new cygwin package: gsl
Charles Wilson wrote: > Well, I said *packaging* looks okay. However, I object to the setup.hint: > > category: Devel > requires: > sdesc:"the GNU Scientific Library" > ldesc:"the GNU Scientific Library, a collection of numerical > routines for scientific computing." > > This is not a development tool. It's a library. The category should be > Libs. And, it's a binary not a script, so it requires cygwin. If Teun > makes those changes, then sure, I'll upload... I think this only affects the source package. I uploaded a new version of that. (You might have to reload the URL in order to avoid looking at a cached copy) http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/ar.burgers/gsl-1.1.1-1-src.tar.bz2 This is the new setup.hint: category: Libs requires: cygwin sdesc:"the GNU Scientific Library" ldesc:"the GNU Scientific Library, a collection of numerical routines for scientific computing." Teun
Re: [PATCH] Fix for postinstall not running
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 07:30:52PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 3:32 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [PATCH] Fix for postinstall not running >> >> >> Here is a fix for the problem of postinstall not running. >> >> I'm not going to check this one into the trunk because it >> uses a static variable and "feels wrong" as a result. I >> think we probably need to change the find interface, either >> to just return the relative path or the full path as needed. > >Hmm. I think we actually want to make it more oop. It should call into >an object, not a 'find routine'. The passed in value will be the >relative value, and the object gets to decide whether to prepend the >path it called find with or not. That's exactly what I was thinking. cgf
new version of indent available, please upload
Hallo, I just finished building the latest indent release. Please do an upload. Since it passes all regression tests besides one low-priority issue (that is new comment-handling-code) I won't release it as test. http://iokaste.koeln.convey.de/cywgin/indent/indent-2.2.8-1.tar.bz2 http://iokaste.koeln.convey.de/cywgin/indent/indent-2.2.8-1-src.tar.bz2 Many thanks, Gerrit -- $ make signature make: *** No rule to make target `signature'. Stop.
Re: new cygwin package: gsl
Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>Packaging looks okay to me. For later releases, you might think about >>re-enabling the libtool shared library support. But for now, the static >>lib is great. >> > > Could you upload the package, Charles? Well, I said *packaging* looks okay. However, I object to the setup.hint: category: Devel requires: sdesc:"the GNU Scientific Library" ldesc:"the GNU Scientific Library, a collection of numerical routines for scientific computing." This is not a development tool. It's a library. The category should be Libs. And, it's a binary not a script, so it requires cygwin. If Teun makes those changes, then sure, I'll upload... --Chuck
apache keep-alives keep hanging
Corinna and the others, we'll need to have some kind of signal passing problem on Cygwin level for Apache's child httpd processes. As you may see from http://apache.dev.wapme.net/server-status the childs don't seem to gracefully timeout when the parent process tells them after timeout to do so. I solved this by sending SIGKILL instead of SIGUSR2 in Apache's source code. But I guess this is more a of a kludge then a solution. Unfortunatly the interprocess signal passing problems appears at high-load only. If someone of the core DLL guys and galls can check this, please?! I'll switch apache-1.3.24-5 to -6 and add the necessary code to use SIGKILL instead of the usual signaling. Stipe [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Wapme Systems AG Münsterstr. 248 40470 Düsseldorf Tel: +49-211-74845-0 Fax: +49-211-74845-299 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de --- wapme.net - wherever you are
Re[2]: Installation of X with setup.exe was Re[8]: setup.exe and inuse files for X
Hello Robert, Thursday, May 16, 2002, 2:11:37 PM, you wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Pavel Tsekov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 10:07 PM >> Sorry, for spamming the mail list :( RC> It wasn't spam. I think that the NTFS changes may well be needed RC> anyway... or are you saying that just tweaking the cygfile remove to RC> have the SetFileAttributes thing is enough? Well.. I was acting encumbered with a wrong assumption and a result from and "incorrect testcase" :(. When you asked me if it is required to use both calls I've run some more tests while replying and saw that DeleteFile works just ok with mode 0400 files when FILE_ATTRIBUTE_READONLY is unset. On the other hand the method I've suggested doesn't work with FILE_ATTRIBUTE_READONLY set i.e. no difference between DeleteFile and CreateFile/FILE_FLAG_DELETE_ON_CLOSE. These mails should be ignored! RC> As for the X problem, yes that would explain it, as setup doesn't know RC> to uninstall.
RE: Installation of X with setup.exe was Re[8]: setup.exe and inuse files for X
> -Original Message- > From: Pavel Tsekov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 10:07 PM > Sorry, for spamming the mail list :( It wasn't spam. I think that the NTFS changes may well be needed anyway... or are you saying that just tweaking the cygfile remove to have the SetFileAttributes thing is enough? As for the X problem, yes that would explain it, as setup doesn't know to uninstall. Rob
Installation of X with setup.exe was Re[8]: setup.exe and inuse files for X
Ok, yesterday I've installed X with setup.exe and ended up with a lot
of filename.new files under /usr/X11R6/ and some other dirs. I took
a look at setup.log and saw this:
2002/05/15 11:26:13 Failed to open cygfile:///usr/X11R6/lib/X11/xman.help for wr
iting.
.. and many others like this. Obviosly I wasn't looking very sharp at
the log file since I choose a wrong direction when looking how to fix
the problem. Today after some bunch of messages I sent to the list, I
decided to grep the setup source for the message printed in the log
file. It appears only in archive.cc:
io_stream::remove (destfilename);
io_stream *tmp = io_stream::open (destfilename, "wb");
if (!tmp)
{
log (LOG_TIMESTAMP, String ("Failed to open ") + destfilename + " for writ
ing.");
return 1;
}
Ok what's wrong here is that io_stream_cygfile::remove doesn't do the
SetFileAttributes() trick when calling DeleteFile ().
I was looking in the wrong place, package_meta.cc in
packagemeta::uninstall. However these code was never executed,
because X was never installed on my PC with setup.exe, but
with the old method for installing X.
Sorry, for spamming the mail list :(
Thursday, May 16, 2002, 1:45:12 PM, you wrote:
PT> No! Because I'm stupid... There is something else here. I got fooled.
RC>> Oh, and can you please provide as a patch+ changelog?
Re[7]: setup.exe and inuse files for X
No! Because I'm stupid... There is something else here. I got fooled. RC> Oh, and can you please provide as a patch+ changelog?
Re: [ANN] apache-1.3.24-5 ready for upload
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 05:33:04PM +0200, Stipe Tolj wrote: > Hi list, > > I have patched the apache package a bit to be more smarted in terms of > preserving the existing config files and document root if users > re-install or update to a newer package. > > The files are at: > >http://apache.dev.wapme.net/support/cygwin-packages/apache/apache-1.3.24-5-src.tar.bz2 > http://apache.dev.wapme.net/support/cygwin-packages/apache/apache-1.3.24-5.tar.bz2 > http://apache.dev.wapme.net/support/cygwin-packages/apache/md5.sum > > Please upload them to sources and I'll announce as soon as FTP mirrors > propagate. Uploaded. Sorry for the delay, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
RE: Re[5]: setup.exe and inuse files for X
Oh, and can you please provide as a patch+ changelog?
Cheers,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: Pavel Tsekov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 8:52 PM
> To: Robert Collins
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re[5]: setup.exe and inuse files for X
>
>
> Ok, I've tested it on my WinXP Home on NTFS, FAT and FAT32.
> The following snippet removes the file no matter the
> filesystem (the Get/SetFileAttributes is required for FAT/FAT32 only):
>
> HANDLE hFile;
> DWORD dwAttr = GetFileAttributes ("test.dat");
> SetFileAttributes ("test.dat", dwAttr & ~FILE_ATTRIBUTE_READONLY);
> hFile = CreateFile ("test.dat", DELETE, 0, NULL, OPEN_EXISTING,
> FILE_FLAG_DELETE_ON_CLOSE, NULL);
> CloseHandle (hFile);
>
> RC>> Does this work on FAT too?
>
> PT> I don't know - its not clear from the documentation.
> Someone has to
> PT> test it on FAT. However this combined with an an call to
> PT> SetFileAttributes () before it should be sufficient.
>
>
RE: Re[5]: setup.exe and inuse files for X
One thing I'm not clear on - are both calls -required-?
> -Original Message-
> From: Pavel Tsekov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 8:52 PM
> To: Robert Collins
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re[5]: setup.exe and inuse files for X
>
>
> Ok, I've tested it on my WinXP Home on NTFS, FAT and FAT32.
> The following snippet removes the file no matter the
> filesystem (the Get/SetFileAttributes is required for FAT/FAT32 only):
>
> HANDLE hFile;
> DWORD dwAttr = GetFileAttributes ("test.dat");
> SetFileAttributes ("test.dat", dwAttr & ~FILE_ATTRIBUTE_READONLY);
> hFile = CreateFile ("test.dat", DELETE, 0, NULL, OPEN_EXISTING,
> FILE_FLAG_DELETE_ON_CLOSE, NULL);
> CloseHandle (hFile);
>
> RC>> Does this work on FAT too?
>
> PT> I don't know - its not clear from the documentation.
> Someone has to
> PT> test it on FAT. However this combined with an an call to
> PT> SetFileAttributes () before it should be sufficient.
>
>
Re[5]: setup.exe and inuse files for X
Ok, I've tested it on my WinXP Home on NTFS, FAT and FAT32. The
following snippet removes the file no matter the filesystem
(the Get/SetFileAttributes is required for FAT/FAT32 only):
HANDLE hFile;
DWORD dwAttr = GetFileAttributes ("test.dat");
SetFileAttributes ("test.dat", dwAttr & ~FILE_ATTRIBUTE_READONLY);
hFile = CreateFile ("test.dat", DELETE, 0, NULL, OPEN_EXISTING,
FILE_FLAG_DELETE_ON_CLOSE, NULL);
CloseHandle (hFile);
RC>> Does this work on FAT too?
PT> I don't know - its not clear from the documentation. Someone has to
PT> test it on FAT. However this combined with an an call to
PT> SetFileAttributes () before it should be sufficient.
RE: [PATCH] Fix for postinstall not running
> -Original Message- > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 3:32 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PATCH] Fix for postinstall not running > > > Here is a fix for the problem of postinstall not running. > > I'm not going to check this one into the trunk because it > uses a static variable and "feels wrong" as a result. I > think we probably need to change the find interface, either > to just return the relative path or the full path as needed. Hmm. I think we actually want to make it more oop. It should call into an object, not a 'find routine'. The passed in value will be the relative value, and the object gets to decide whether to prepend the path it called find with or not. Rob.
Re[4]: setup.exe and inuse files for X
Hello Robert,
Thursday, May 16, 2002, 10:59:27 AM, you wrote:
RC> Does this work on FAT too?
I don't know - its not clear from the documentation. Someone has to
test it on FAT. However this combined with an an call to
SetFileAttributes () before it should be sufficient.
Btw the snippet below is wrong - FILE_ATTRIBUTES_READONLY should be
removed from the call. I type too fast :(
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Pavel Tsekov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 6:33 PM
RC> Ok here is how to fix this issues I've just tried it on my XP Home and
RC> it worked fine.
RC> HANDLE h = CreateFile("test.c",
RC> DELETE,
RC> 0, // We want it all :)
RC> NULL,
RC> OPEN_EXISTING,
RC> FILE_ATTRIBUTE_READONLY /*to be compatible*/
|
Bah, this here is an error --+
RC> | FILE_FLAG_DELETE_ON_CLOSE, NULL);
RC> CloseHandle (h);
Re: new cygwin package: gsl
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 04:55:22PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: > > > Teun Burgers wrote: > > >Hello, > > > >I've uploaded binary and source packages of GSL, > >homepage www.fsf.org/software/gsl/ > >These are the URL's of binary and source tarballs: > > > >http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/ar.burgers/gsl-1.1.1-1-src.tar.bz2 > >http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/ar.burgers/gsl-1.1.1-1.tar.bz2 > > > Packaging looks okay to me. For later releases, you might think about > re-enabling the libtool shared library support. But for now, the static > lib is great. Could you upload the package, Charles? Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
RE: Re[2]: setup.exe and inuse files for X
Does this work on FAT too?
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: Pavel Tsekov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 6:33 PM
Ok here is how to fix this issues I've just tried it on my XP Home and
it worked fine.
HANDLE h = CreateFile("test.c",
DELETE,
0, // We want it all :)
NULL,
OPEN_EXISTING,
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_READONLY /*to be compatible*/
| FILE_FLAG_DELETE_ON_CLOSE, NULL);
CloseHandle (h);
Re[3]: setup.exe and inuse files for X
[snip] PT> Obviously the DELETE permission is missing. You call SetFileAttributes PT> with ~FILE_ATTRIBUTE_READONLY which shoul enable the file for reading | deleting ---+ PT> but it does not - I suppose this is why: [snip]
Re[2]: setup.exe and inuse files for X
Hello Robert,
Friday, May 03, 2002, 1:58:28 AM, you wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Corinna Vinschen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 1:44 AM
>> To: CygWin Apps; Cygwin-Xfree
>> Subject: Re: setup.exe and inuse files for X
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 04:58:36PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>> > I think I've got a handle on this... looks like read only
>> (-r--r--r--)
>> > files don't delete properly, so setup fails to overwrite them.
>> >
>> > Patches gratefully accepted, it's going in the TODO for now.
>>
>> I recall having sent a patch for this a few months ago to the
>> cygwin-apps list...
RC> Yes. And I had implemented similar code. (Including the
RC> SetFileAttributes call).
RC> I'm not sure why it is still failing to do what it should.
Check this out:
Quoted from the description of DeleteFile in the MDSN library:
To delete or rename a file, you must have either delete permission on the file
or delete child permission in the parent directory. If you set up a directory with
all access except delete and delete child and the ACLs of new files are inherited,
then you should be able to create a file without being able to delete it. However,
you can then create a file, and you will get all the access you request on the handle
returned to you at the time you create the file. If you requested delete permission
at the time you created the file, you could delete or rename the file with that handle
but not with any other.
ACL of a mode 400 file from my home directory:
C:\cygwin\home\paveltz\test.c MORDOR\paveltz:(accesso speciale:)
READ_CONTROL
WRITE_DAC
WRITE_OWNER
SYNCHRONIZE
FILE_GENERIC_READ
FILE_READ_DATA
FILE_READ_EA
FILE_WRITE_EA
FILE_READ_ATTRIBUTES
FILE_WRITE_ATTRIBUTES
MORDOR\Nessuno:(accesso speciale:)
READ_CONTROL
FILE_READ_EA
FILE_READ_ATTRIBUTES
Everyone:(accesso speciale:)
READ_CONTROL
FILE_READ_EA
FILE_READ_ATTRIBUTES
Obviously the DELETE permission is missing. You call SetFileAttributes
with ~FILE_ATTRIBUTE_READONLY which shoul enable the file for reading
but it does not - I suppose this is why:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/fileio/filesio_6c8i.asp
Note that it is said:
dwFileAttributes
Specifies FAT-style attribute information for the file or directory.
But if we're on NTFS there is no joy :( I've tried a simple test with
SetFileAttributes and ~FILE_ATTRIBUTE_READONLY and it doesnt affect
the file at all.
Ok here is how to fix this issues I've just tried it on my XP Home and
it worked fine.
HANDLE h = CreateFile("test.c",
DELETE,
0, // We want it all :)
NULL,
OPEN_EXISTING,
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_READONLY /*to be compatible*/
| FILE_FLAG_DELETE_ON_CLOSE, NULL);
CloseHandle (h);
