Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 12:25:14AM +0100, Lothar Brendel wrote:
More information as promised, after getting the new run and checkX
(run2) packages announced this morning.
$ checkX -v
run2 0.3.2
0.3.2 announced? I didn't get any such message, and setup still only
offe
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 12:25:14AM +0100, Lothar Brendel wrote:
>>More information as promised, after getting the new run and checkX
>>(run2) packages announced this morning.
>>
>> $ checkX -v
>> run2 0.3.2
>
>0.3.2 announced? I didn't get any such message, and setup still only offers
>0.3.1-1 to
Hi!
More information as promised, after getting the new run and checkX
(run2) packages announced this morning.
$ checkX -v
run2 0.3.2
0.3.2 announced? I didn't get any such message, and setup still only offers
0.3.1-1 to me.
vhaisbtim...@isb-timaresbrian-lt ~
$ XWin -multiwindow &
[1] 50
More information as promised, after getting the new run and checkX
(run2) packages announced this morning.
$ checkX -v
run2 0.3.2
- QUOTE -
Lothar Brendel wrote:
>Timares, Brian (Patriot) wrote:
>> The X window showed up, but it blew up real good (the windows
>> disappeared, then the X i
Lothar Brendel wrote:
>Timares, Brian (Patriot) wrote:
>> The X window showed up, but it blew up real good (the windows
>> disappeared, then the X icon. After a rebootit
>> didn't launch at all. I ran startxwin.sh from the Cygwin Bash
>> Shell, and it started.
>
>At least we're getting *some
Timares, Brian (Patriot) wrote:
Lothar Brendel wrote:
Timares, Brian (Patriot) wrote:
Lothar Brendel wrote:
$ checkX -v
run2 0.3.0
So, you've got the situation I surmised in
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-xfree/2009-11/msg00200.html
Grr, I saw that, went and _thought_ I got the right version
Lothar Brendel wrote:
>Timares, Brian (Patriot) wrote:
>> Lothar Brendel wrote:
>> $ checkX -v
>> run2 0.3.0
>So, you've got the situation I surmised in
>http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-xfree/2009-11/msg00200.html
Grr, I saw that, went and _thought_ I got the right version but
it seems the right ver
Timares, Brian (Patriot) wrote:
Lothar Brendel wrote:
[...]
Thus, once more: What does
md5sum /usr/bin/checkX
yield?
a827086e9cbb331ef49d416b3cb1b135 or a36409714f5ce9d01e8dfb4cb38b7216?
The 2nd:
vhaisbtim...@isb-timaresbrian-lt ~
$ md5sum /usr/bin/checkX
a36409714f5ce9d01e8dfb4cb38b72
Lothar Brendel wrote:
>Timares, Brian (Patriot) wrote:
>> Just to be clear from the start, Cygwin 1.7 not 1.5.
>
>ACK.
*blush* Sorry!
...
>Thus, once more: What does
>md5sum /usr/bin/checkX
>yield?
>
>a827086e9cbb331ef49d416b3cb1b135 or a36409714f5ce9d01e8dfb4cb38b7216?
The 2nd:
vhaisbtim.
Timares, Brian (Patriot) wrote:
Just to be clear from the start, Cygwin 1.7 not 1.5.
ACK.
[...]
i) ```time checkX -t 12''
How long does it take?
vhaisbtim...@isb-timaresbrian-lt ~
$ time checkX -t 12
real0m0.098s
user0m0.046s
sys 0m0.031s
And *that* shouldn't happen!
I don'
I wrote:
>And I tried to make this clear.
email -^
*sigh*
Sorry!
Brian
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/
FAQ: http://x.cy
Just to be clear from the start, Cygwin 1.7 not 1.5. And I tried to
make this clear. And I tried to not let Outlook's word-wrap inter-
fere.
Lothar Brendel wrote:
>Timares, Brian (Patriot) wrote:
>> Lothar Brendel wrote:
>>> Timares, Brian (Patriot) wrote:
Lothar Brendel wrote:
> My gue
Timares, Brian (Patriot) wrote:
Lothar Brendel wrote:
Timares, Brian (Patriot) wrote:
Lothar Brendel wrote:
My guess: It's the old checkX-problem again because you're using
version
0.3.0-1 of the run2-package. Do to some reason unknown to me,
that's the default version. But we need 0.3.1-1, wh
Lothar Brendel wrote:
>Timares, Brian (Patriot) wrote:
>> Lothar Brendel wrote:
>>> My guess: It's the old checkX-problem again because you're using
>>> version
>>> 0.3.0-1 of the run2-package. Do to some reason unknown to me, that's
>>> the default version. But we need 0.3.1-1, which you only get
Timares, Brian (Patriot) wrote:
Lothar Brendel wrote:
[...]
My guess: It's the old checkX-problem again because you're using
version
0.3.0-1 of the run2-package. Do to some reason unknown to me, that's
the default version. But we need 0.3.1-1, which you only get when
explicitely (triple-)clic
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Lothar Brendel wrote:
Thomas Dickey wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Lothar Brendel wrote:
[...]
Hence, to make Cygwin/X+xterm run out of the box (using
the start menu shortcut), you have to install the CJK fonts. One
more noob-question,
otoh, (discarding run-out-of-the-bo
Thomas Dickey wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Lothar Brendel wrote:
[...]
Hence, to make Cygwin/X+xterm run out of the box (using
the start menu shortcut), you have to install the CJK fonts. One
more noob-question,
otoh, (discarding run-out-of-the-box, since that doesn't give a good
solution),
Timares, Brian (Patriot) wrote:
[...]
Nothing works. 1.7 doesn't work for me out-of-the-box (yes, I ripped
it all out and tried it fresh :-)
I open a DOS box and check processes and see bash running with an l or
a 1 in the left columnn, but nothing appears. If I launch an Xterm
it opens up.
Ken Brown wrote:
>On 11/26/2009 2:30 AM, Lothar Brendel wrote:
>> Errh, yes. Hence, to make Cygwin/X+xterm run out of the box (using
the
>> start menu shortcut), you have to install the CJK fonts. One more
>There are three packages: font-isas-misc, font-jis-misc, and
>font-daewoo-misc.
I insta
On 11/26/2009 2:30 AM, Lothar Brendel wrote:
Errh, yes. Hence, to make Cygwin/X+xterm run out of the box (using the
start menu shortcut), you have to install the CJK fonts. One more
noob-question, sorry: Which font-package does provide "the CJK fonts"? I
tried several ones but up to now in vain
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Lothar Brendel wrote:
Charles Wilson wrote:
Lothar Brendel wrote:
Unfortunately the situatiuon with ``startxwin.bat'' is worse now:
* ``checkX -t 12'' still doesn't wait (?!?)
I can't reproduce this.
Stupid me, sorry. When updating to pull in libustr1, run2 was accide
Charles Wilson wrote:
Lothar Brendel wrote:
Unfortunately the situatiuon with ``startxwin.bat'' is worse now:
* ``checkX -t 12'' still doesn't wait (?!?)
I can't reproduce this.
Stupid me, sorry. When updating to pull in libustr1, run2 was accidently
reverted to 0.3.0-1.
* After again
On 11/25/2009 8:18 AM, Charles Wilson wrote:
Lothar Brendel wrote:
* After again inserting a sleep between checkXing and starting the
xterm, the latter is marginally successful: The process is shown as
running but no xterm is showing up :-(
That's an xterm/XWin issue.
And it's been discussed
Lothar Brendel wrote:
> Unfortunately the situatiuon with ``startxwin.bat'' is worse now:
>
> * ``checkX -t 12'' still doesn't wait (?!?)
I can't reproduce this.
> * After again inserting a sleep between checkXing and starting the
> xterm, the latter is marginally successful: The process is show
Charles Wilson wrote:
Lothar Brendel wrote:
It should list, but it doesn't:
$ grep -A9 '@ run2' setup-2.ini
^^^
This was the clue.
As it happens, the union mount stuff had an override for setup.hint,
but not the entire directory. So, the tarbal
Lothar Brendel wrote:
> It should list, but it doesn't:
>
> $ grep -A9 '@ run2' setup-2.ini
^^^
This was the clue.
As it happens, the union mount stuff had an override for setup.hint, but
not the entire directory. So, the tarballs themselves magi
Charles Wilson wrote:
Lothar Brendel wrote:
checkX fails due to a missing "cygustr-1.dll". That's contained in
which package?
From http://cygwin.com/packages/ and typing in 'cygustr-1.dll', I get:
Great, thanx for that one.
This *should* have been installed by setup automatically, as the
Lothar Brendel wrote:
> checkX fails due to a missing "cygustr-1.dll". That's contained in which
> package?
>From http://cygwin.com/packages/ and typing in 'cygustr-1.dll', I get:
libustr1
This *should* have been installed by setup automatically, as the run2
package now lists libustr1 as a depen
Charles Wilson wrote:
I've integrated Lothar's patch into run2/checkX (along with some other
internal changes), and published a test release. Please try
run-0.3.1-1 and let me know if it fixes your problems with checkX.
checkX fails due to a missing "cygustr-1.dll". That's contained in which
On 20/11/2009 19:43, Ken Brown wrote:
On 11/20/2009 12:14 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
I've integrated Lothar's patch into run2/checkX (along with some other
internal changes), and published a test release. Please try run-0.3.1-1
and let me know if it fixes your problems with checkX.
But the new
On 11/20/2009 2:47 PM, Gertjan van Noord wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 02:43:11PM -0500, Ken Brown wrote:
On 11/20/2009 12:14 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
I've integrated Lothar's patch into run2/checkX (along with some other
internal changes), and published a test release. Please try run-0.3.1-
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 02:43:11PM -0500, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 11/20/2009 12:14 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >I've integrated Lothar's patch into run2/checkX (along with some other
> >internal changes), and published a test release. Please try run-0.3.1-1
> >and let me know if it fixes your proble
On 11/20/2009 12:14 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
I've integrated Lothar's patch into run2/checkX (along with some other
internal changes), and published a test release. Please try run-0.3.1-1
and let me know if it fixes your problems with checkX.
I still have the instability that I reported as pr
On 13/11/2009 02:27, Charles Wilson wrote:
Jon TURNEY wrote:
But why would you fix the timeout problem by doing some horrible
horrible iteration in the DOS batch script (horrible) (which would
probably have to busy-wait (also horrible) as there's no sleep command),
when you can fix checkX, which
I've integrated Lothar's patch into run2/checkX (along with some other
internal changes), and published a test release. Please try run-0.3.1-1
and let me know if it fixes your problems with checkX.
--
Chuck
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:
Charles Wilson wrote:
[...]
AFAICT, the "cure" for all of these problems is worse than the disease
-- and the only *total* fix is for the main thread to always join()
the worker. Which is precisely what we want to avoid.
ACK and thanx for the explanations.
Ciao
Lothar
--
Unsubscrib
Lothar Brendel wrote:
> Ok, this can be cured by
>
>if (pthread_cond_timedwait (&cv_xopenOK, &mtx_xopenOK, &then) ==
> ETIMEDOUT) {
> xopenOK = XSERV_TIMEDOUT; /* it's okay, we have the mutex */
> xopenTrying = 0; /* allow open_display() to give up */
> + pthread_mutex_unlock(&
Lothar Brendel wrote:
[...]
The
failure doesn't really harm, but we can be less dirty by checking the
result of pthread_mutex_unlock(), cf. the new patch.
Correction: I meant the result of pthread_mutex_lock() (in open_display()).
Ciao
Lothar
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.
Charles Wilson wrote:
[...]
The call to XOpenDisplay can take up to 12 seconds. Suppose the main
thread times out after say 5 seconds, and then just after that we
have a *successful* return in the worker thread. The worker thread
tries to get the mutex:
+ (*(data->xclosedis))(dpy);
+
Lothar Brendel wrote:
> Charles Wilson already set up this kind of infrastructure, I just had to
> introduce one more communication variable, cf. the patch below
> (positively tested on my system).
>
> Yep, there are really two different purposes for a setting a timeout [i)
> "Just check whether a
Mike Ayers wrote:
From: cygwin-xfree-ow...@cygwin.com [mailto:cygwin-xfree-
ow...@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of Lothar Brendel
Could you please clarify an issue here? (Sorry, it seems, I wronged
to ``run'' in the previous posts.)
In a Windows command prompt (being somewhere on C:) I put the line
> From: cygwin-xfree-ow...@cygwin.com [mailto:cygwin-xfree-
> ow...@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of Lothar Brendel
> Could you please clarify an issue here? (Sorry, it seems, I wronged to
> ``run'' in the previous posts.)
>
> In a Windows command prompt (being somewhere on C:) I put the line
> \
Charles Wilson wrote:
[...]
run.exe is peculiar. The first argument is the target, and IF the VERY
NEXT argument is "-wait", run "usurps" that argument. That is, run
will invoke:
checkX
and checkX will never see "-wait". So, what does run.exe do with
"-wait"? It...waits. run.exe won't ex
On 11/12/2009 4:31 PM, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 30/10/2009 13:48, Ken Brown wrote:
2. If I start the X server by using the default startxwin.bat or
startxwin.sh (both of which call checkX), the server is very unstable
and crashes within a few minutes. This happens consistently, and it
never happens
Jon TURNEY wrote:
> But why would you fix the timeout problem by doing some horrible
> horrible iteration in the DOS batch script (horrible) (which would
> probably have to busy-wait (also horrible) as there's no sleep command),
> when you can fix checkX, which has the bonus of fixing other uses of
On 12/11/2009 23:09, Lothar Brendel wrote:
Jon TURNEY wrote:
[...]
Fortunately, the X server
binds it's socket pretty early in the startup, so this probably works
pretty well, but in theory at least there is still a possible timing
window in startxwin.bat.
Yep, and in my setup the X server *
Jon TURNEY wrote:
[...]
Fortunately, the X server
binds it's socket pretty early in the startup, so this probably works
pretty well, but in theory at least there is still a possible timing
window in startxwin.bat.
Yep, and in my setup the X server *always* comes up too late.
So it perhaps
On 30/10/2009 13:48, Ken Brown wrote:
I'm having trouble with checkX. I haven't seen other people complain
about this, so I assume it's something about my system, but I can't
figure out what. There are two symptoms:
1. If I run checkX with a timeout, the timeout seems to be ignored. For
example
I'm having trouble with checkX. I haven't seen other people complain
about this, so I assume it's something about my system, but I can't
figure out what. There are two symptoms:
1. If I run checkX with a timeout, the timeout seems to be ignored. For
example, with the X server *not* running:
49 matches
Mail list logo
