Re: Can't read lock file
On Nov 11 07:40, Fergus wrote: > Q1. Is it still the case that this problem is "not well understood" > as in this reference? >http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/cygwin-x-faq.html#q-cant-read-lock-file > Hardlinks don't work on FAT filesystems since FAT doesn't support them. Up to Cygwin 1.7.0-60, hardlinks on FAT were faked by copying the file. This has obvious downsides (unsecure, potential denial-of-service problems, portability), so we discussed and decided to remove this fake and to return an error instead when trying to create a hardlink on a FAT FS: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2009-09/msg00208.html > (My experiments with possible cause/ cure are confounded because on > Machine 1 I have NTFS filesystems but lack administrator rights and > on Machine 2 where I am Administrator, all filesystems are FAT32.) Which is bad since FAT32 has no security at all. Any process of any user on the machine can overwrite any file, even in the Windows folder. NTFS is much more secure and has a couple of features you never get with FAT32, and hardlinks are only one minor advantage. You should really update the filesystem to NTFS using the on-board convert.exe tool. As for X, it should have a fallback method if the /tmp filesystem doesn't support hardlinks. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/ FAQ: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/
Re: Can't read lock file
On 11/11/2009 02:40 AM, Fergus wrote: Q4 Why are questions about X specifically directed to a different mailing list? Apart from occasional high-frequency dialogue as at present, posts about X are (or seem to me to be) no more frequent than posts about grep or ls or chmod or ... . The "main" Cygwin list has a much higher readership and posts directed there might generate many useful hints, tips, experiences, fixes or even solutions? Except in the cases where the issue at hand just looks like a X problem but is instead a Cygwin problem, I don't see that being on a separate list minimizes the knowledgeable readership. That is, unless those with X background don't know about the Cygwin-X list. But if that's the case, they may not really fall into the "knowledgeable" category. ;-) And in the case where it is a Cygwin vs a X problem, these questions get redirected to the main list AFAICS when appropriate. I believe the original intent was to keep X separated from the high volume of the regular list rather than the other way around. The last time this question came up, the consensus supported that notion. Of course, things could change in the future. -- Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office 216 Dalton Rd. (508) 893-9889 - FAX Holliston, MA 01746 _ A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email? -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/ FAQ: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/