On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 04:35:23PM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote: >On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Pawel Jasinski wrote: >>>If you can find a nice Linux errno which maps from >>>ERROR_SXS_CANT_GEN_ACTCTX to something other than EACCES I'd be happy >>>to change Cygwin. >> >>Sorry I was not clear. The point was not to use linux error code. >>what I was trying to say is linux does not follow POSIX only error >>codes policy. Such a policy is impractical. Your point was POSIX >>only, wasn't it? You can add cygwin specific error codes. > >Cygwin doesn't have the access required to execute the process because >of some reason. It is up to you to examine the reason. Why should we >be bothered with anything other than EACCESS? When you reported the >issue the first action you took was to determine why you couldn't >execute a Windows program. That was the correct action, hammering this >list with your wishes isn't gaining you sympathy from those that use >and support it.
Actually, it was Andrew Defaria who wanted it but, yeah, I think I've personally devoted more time to this than the issue warrants. I've asked Corinna privately if she has any ideas or concerns but I would be surprised if this was something that she thought important to address. If someone has a patch they want to propose they should send it to cygwin-patches, bearing in mind that we don't want to break any existing applications. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
