Andrey Repin wrote:
Greetings, All!
_a=fileA;
_b=fileB;
[ ! -f "$_a" ] && touch "$_a";
[ ! -f "$_b" ] && ln "$_a" "$_b";
for i in $(seq 1 10);
do sleep 1;
[ "$_a" -ef "$_b" ] && { echo Timed in $i; break;}; done;
rm "$_a" "$_b"
When executed this oneliner over Samba 4.3 network share,
Greetings, Richard H Lee!
> On 19/05/2017 23:01, Richard H Lee wrote:
>> On 19/05/2017 22:37, Andrey Repin wrote:
>>> When executed this oneliner over Samba 4.3 network share, it takes 5
>>> seconds to match the newly created hardlink. I'm wondering if this is
>>> Cygwin, Samba or Windows
On 19/05/2017 23:01, Richard H Lee wrote:
On 19/05/2017 22:37, Andrey Repin wrote:
When executed this oneliner over Samba 4.3 network share, it takes 5
seconds to match the newly created hardlink. I'm wondering if this is
Cygwin, Samba or Windows networking issue?
I think it's something to do
On 19/05/2017 22:37, Andrey Repin wrote:
When executed this oneliner over Samba 4.3 network share, it takes 5
seconds to match the newly created hardlink. I'm wondering if this is
Cygwin, Samba or Windows networking issue?
I think it's something to do with windows name resolution.
Try
Greetings, All!
_a=fileA;
_b=fileB;
[ ! -f "$_a" ] && touch "$_a";
[ ! -f "$_b" ] && ln "$_a" "$_b";
for i in $(seq 1 10);
do sleep 1;
[ "$_a" -ef "$_b" ] && { echo Timed in $i; break;}; done;
rm "$_a" "$_b"
When executed this oneliner over Samba 4.3 network share, it takes 5 seconds
to match
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Erik Soderquist wrote:
> This is expected behavior if you have not used "password -R" to
> provide the network password.
from the doc
(https://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/ntsec.html#ntsec-setuid-overview):
So what we do is to utilize this registry area for the
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Dave Pierce wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I am running Cygwin-64, 2.8.0(0.309/5/3) on a Windows 2016 Server. This
> system is intended for use by a fairly wide audience of devs. We have this
> working correctly on an old Windows 2008 box running Cygwin
> 1.7.9(0.237/5/3).
>
I have uploaded mintty 2.7.7 with the following changes:
Font rendering and display handling
* Automatically disabling Uniscribe for ASCII-only chunks
(mintty/wsltty#36).
* Fixed bidi display while showing other screen with Bidi=1 (#592,
~#392, ~#605).
Window handling
* Avoid being
I have uploaded mintty 2.7.7 with the following changes:
Font rendering and display handling
* Automatically disabling Uniscribe for ASCII-only chunks
(mintty/wsltty#36).
* Fixed bidi display while showing other screen with Bidi=1 (#592,
~#392, ~#605).
Window handling
* Avoid being
Hello!
I am running Cygwin-64, 2.8.0(0.309/5/3) on a Windows 2016 Server. This sys=
tem is intended for use by a fairly wide audience of devs. We have this wor=
king correctly on an old Windows 2008 box running Cygwin 1.7.9(0.237/5/3). =
The new system is intended to replace the old one. I've
Yaakov Selkowitz writes:
> With the upgrade to 5.26, we will need to rebuild every single Perl
> module package again. While we have no choice for 5.26, I would like
> to implement a method of minimizing the effort that will be needed in
> future upgrades.
>
> For 5.22 we had:
>
> prefix=/usr
>
On 18/05/2017 08:42, Sky Diver wrote:
Any idea when your fix will get released as an official cygwin PHP
package?
Hi Yaakov,
I can see you're really busy with package maintenance and all, but I was
wondering if you could review and merge my patch for this issue. It's
basically changing the
On 5/19/2017 8:40 AM, Nellis, Kenneth wrote:
> From: Sky Diver
>> Actually, the preferred user experience would be to:
>> 1. Start in Category view
>> 2. Select whatever packages to install/remove/etc.
>> 3. Click "Next"
>> 4. Have the Pending view show up in order to review whatever is going
>>
On 5/18/2017 3:00 PM, Achim Gratz wrote:
I hope I've gleaned all the dependencies of biber correctly, so this
should be your dependency tree for perl-5.24.1 (the first few have a
cycle somewhere in their dependencies, so you need to build them, then
start from the top again, they're the ones
On 5/18/2017 3:12 PM, Brian Inglis wrote:
On 2017-05-18 13:00, Achim Gratz wrote:
Ken Brown writes:
Should this discussion have been taking place on -apps?
Probably.
Relative newbie on apps but feel I've become apps-cop ;^>
I've got my eyes on you - Brown!
Sorry, Officer.
Ken
--
From: Sky Diver
> Actually, the preferred user experience would be to:
> 1. Start in Category view
> 2. Select whatever packages to install/remove/etc.
> 3. Click "Next"
> 4. Have the Pending view show up in order to review whatever is going
> to be installed.
> 5. Have the option to Approve /
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Brian Inglis wrote:
> You should always check Pending last, to see what will be installed
> or upgraded, if there is anything you forgot, don't need, or don't
> want upgraded, and the download sizes, if time, speed, or space are
> concerns, or you just don't want a
17 matches
Mail list logo
