Re: The humble and other editing keys

> Elfyn McBratney wrote on 14 Feb 2003 18:18:47 - > > In bash you can add the following > > > > # DEL key in bash > > "\e[3~": delete-char > > > > to your ~/.inputrc or your /etc/inputrc file to get a functioning DEL > > ke. > > Thanks! I've been wondering about that for far too long. :-) > >

Re: The humble and other editing keys

Elfyn McBratney wrote on 14 Feb 2003 18:18:47 - > In bash you can add the following > > # DEL key in bash > "\e[3~": delete-char > > to your ~/.inputrc or your /etc/inputrc file to get a functioning DEL > ke. Thanks! I've been wondering about that for far too long. :-) BTW I read the read

Re: Trouble installing Perl module under cygwin

> 12608240 [main] perl 934555 sync_with_child: child -50248815(0x154) died before initialization with status code 0x1 > 12608301 [main] perl 934555 sync_with_child: *** child state child loading dlls > C:\CYGWIN\BINERL.EXE: *** couldn't allocate memory > 0x1(4128768) for 'C:\CYGWIN\LIBERL5\5.8.

Re: Trouble installing Perl module under cygwin

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Vince Hoffman wrote: > looks like a rebase issue, try a google on "cygwin rebase perl" and you > should get some hints. I understand Steve's error message (copied below) indicates a rebase issue. I thought rebase might be the solution for some other perl problems I am having.

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

--- Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 04:08:15PM -0800, Rick Rankin wrote: > >> I was also thinking of creating a '/dev/tty' file in the archive which > >> was just a real file containing the words "Hey! What are YOU DOING???" I > >> think that would cause a t

Re: Wget ignores robot.txt entry

Lowell, Max Bowsher reported: Or, on the command line -erobots=off :-) Whilst this does control whether wget downloads robots.txt, a quick test confirms that even when it does get robots.txt, it still wanders into cgi-bin. I'd suggest taking this to the wget list, except wget it currently m

[ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: gdb-20030214-1

I've made a new version of GDB (aka insight) available for downloading. This version is a refresh from CVS on sources.redhat.com. This release has more insight improvements from Martin Hunt and Keith Seitz. There are (so far unofficial) fixes from Raoul Gough for dealing with relocated DLLs and m

Re: Win 2000 : Open Files With Word & Excel From The Command Line

Steve, Double damn! Or maybe... Third time's the charm. Yeah, that's it! -==- #!/bin/bash wwArgs=() for arg; do wwArgs[${#wwArgs[@]}]="$(cygpath -m "$arg")" done exec "/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft Office/Office/winword.exe" "${wwArgs[@]}" -==- Randall Schulz Steve, Damn. I fo

Re: Win 2000 : Open Files With Word & Excel From The Command Line

Steve, Damn. I forgot the part about converting the argument names from Cygwin / POSIX to Windows. This is better: -==- #!/bin/bash wwArgs=() for arg; do wwArgs${#wwArgs@]}]="$(cygpath -w "$arg")" done exec "/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft Office/Office/winword.exe" "${wwArgs[@]}" -

Re: Win 2000 : Open Files With Word & Excel From The Command Line

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 08:42:23PM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote: >Oh, and to satisfy Thorsten: This is scripting 101 stuff and is in no >way Cygwin-specific. D'oh! I missed an opportunity to be mean. It didn't even cross my mind. What is *wrong* with me??? Grumble. cgf -- Unsubscribe info:

[ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: tcltk-20030214-1

I've made a new version of and tcltk available for downloading. This version is a refresh from sources.redhat.com. There is only one change in this version that I am aware of. tclsh84 is now reputed to understand cygwin paths, thanks to a patch from Mumit Khan. To update your installation, clic

Re: Win 2000 : Open Files With Word & Excel From The Command Line

Steve, Do your scripts look something like this: -==- #!/bin/sh exec "/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft Office/Office/winword.exe" "$@" -==- If they're missing the "$@" part, they're not passing on the arguments you give the script to "winword.exe" or "excel.exe". The "exec" part at the beg

Group name getting set to 'mkpasswd'

There are two posts on [EMAIL PROTECTED] at the moment where a discussed change and perhaps implemented (?) on [EMAIL PROTECTED] has come up. The first was ("mkpasswd: [5] Access is denied.") where the user, Peter Canning had problems running mkpasswd agains his own user and the second that's just

Re: Win 2000 : Open Files With Word & Excel From The Command Line

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 10:55:22PM -0500, Steve wrote: >I put script files called "word" and "excel" in my /usr/local/bin. These >files have the path to the ms word and ms excel executables. > >They work, they bring up the apps, but I can't get the apps to take >command line arguments to open remot

Re: no man pages

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 08:18:40PM -0800, christophe thiebot wrote: >S cygcheck -c cygwin-doc |grep cygwin-doc >has the output: >cygwin-doc 1.3-2 > >$ ls -al /usr/man/man1/ps.1.gz >has the output: >--+ 1 CHTHImkpasswd 1308 Oct 17 17:22 >/usr/man/man1/ps.1.gz chmod -R a+r /usr/ma

Win 2000 : Open Files With Word & Excel From The Command Line

Hi; I'm on win 2000 and I am using cygwin. I put script files called "word" and "excel" in my /usr/local/bin. These files have the path to the ms word and ms excel executables. They work, they bring up the apps, but I can't get the apps to take command line arguments to open remote files. For e

Re: no man pages

S cygcheck -c cygwin-doc |grep cygwin-doc has the output: cygwin-doc 1.3-2 $ ls -al /usr/man/man1/ps.1.gz has the output: --+ 1 CHTHImkpasswd 1308 Oct 17 17:22 /usr/man/man1/ps.1.gz $ which man retuns "man: Command not found" However, I checked that /usr/bin/man.exe is existing

Re: no man pages

* christophe thiebot (03-02-15 03:44 +0100) > I cannot display any man pages on my newly installed cygwin 1.3.20.1 > When I do: man ps > I got: > "No manual entry for ps" > MANPATH was not set and I set it to /usr/man > I checked that /usr/man/man1/ps.1.gz is present > I saw a /etc/man.config. How

Re: no man pages

> I cannot display any man pages on my newly installed cygwin 1.3.20.1 > When I do: man ps > I got: > "No manual entry for ps" > MANPATH was not set and I set it to /usr/man > I checked that /usr/man/man1/ps.1.gz is present > I saw a /etc/man.config. How to tell man to read this man.config? man(1)

Re: no man pages

Christophe, Man pages are sold separately. Use Cygwin Setup to download and install the "cygwin-doc" package. Unless you have added manual pages of your own to the system, there's no need to set MANPATH. Randall Schulz At 18:44 2003-02-14, christophe thiebot wrote: I cannot display any man p

no man pages

I cannot display any man pages on my newly installed cygwin 1.3.20.1 When I do: man ps I got: "No manual entry for ps" MANPATH was not set and I set it to /usr/man I checked that /usr/man/man1/ps.1.gz is present I saw a /etc/man.config. How to tell man to read this man.config? Thanks, Christophe

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

Christopher Faylor wrote: FWIW, I've recently sent email to Mumit Khan for similar reasons. His "ancient" gnu-win32 site still shows up in google and some of the outdated techniques espoused there demonstrably cause confusion. It's even worse that you think. Last week's LWN contained a newssn

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 01:30:09AM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 01:14:54AM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote: >> >> Actually, just creating a file named 'con' would probably be easier. >> > >> >Isn't 'con' a reserved name in windows? >> >> That's kinda the whole point. > >Rig

Re: Wget ignores robot.txt entry

Randall R Schulz wrote: Lowell, What's in your "~/.wgetrc" file? If it contains this: robots = off Then wget will not respect a "robots.txt" file on the host from which it is retrieving files. Before I learned of this option (accessible _only_ via this directive in the .wgetrc file), I did

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

> On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 01:14:54AM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > >> Actually, just creating a file named 'con' would probably be easier. > > > >Isn't 'con' a reserved name in windows? > > That's kinda the whole point. Right...I get it now. > >I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to extract it

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 01:12:49PM -0600, Robert Citek wrote: > > They are using apt-get to install Cygwin. :-) > [ wishful thinking ] you remind me of something. i once tried exactly this, but failed on some C++ stuff which i could not resolve. some includes failed, but i guess its within the a

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 01:14:54AM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote: >> Actually, just creating a file named 'con' would probably be easier. > >Isn't 'con' a reserved name in windows? That's kinda the whole point. >I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to extract it from the tar >archive. It works ju

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

> Actually, just creating a file named 'con' would probably be easier. Isn't 'con' a reserved name in windows? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to extract it from the tar archive. Regards, Elfyn McBratney [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.exposure.org.uk -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/m

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 04:08:15PM -0800, Rick Rankin wrote: >> I was also thinking of creating a '/dev/tty' file in the archive which >> was just a real file containing the words "Hey! What are YOU DOING???" I >> think that would cause a tar extraction to print that message to the >> screen. Don'

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 09:42:19AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 08:59, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>I suppose so, but, again, it seems like many people *recently* are >>unaware of the setup program entirely. > >Hmm, I think we should add a new screen to setup.exe. > >After the

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

--- Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 02:21:18PM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote: > >Chris, > > > >At 13:59 2003-02-14, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >>On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:50:48AM +1100, andrew clarke wrote: > >>>On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 01:26:15PM -0500, Ch

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 10:53, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > On 15 Feb 2003, Robert Collins wrote: > > > On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 09:28, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > I was also thinking of creating a '/dev/tty' file in the archive which > > > was just a real file containing the words

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On 15 Feb 2003, Robert Collins wrote: > On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 09:28, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > [snip] > > > I was also thinking of creating a '/dev/tty' file in the archive which > > was just a real file containing the words "Hey! What are YOU DOING???" I > > think that would cause a tar extra

Re: mkpasswd: [5] Access is denied.

> The strace output I provided was for a command that failed. I just forgot > to mention that running > strace --output=mkpasswd.strace.txt mkpasswd -u canning -d > produces the following message: > mkpasswd: [5] Access is denied > as well as producing the strace output in the file that

Re: mkpasswd: [5] Access is denied.

The strace output I provided was for a command that failed. I just forgot to mention that running strace --output=mkpasswd.strace.txt mkpasswd -u canning -d produces the following message: mkpasswd: [5] Access is denied as well as producing the strace output in the file that I attached t

Re: Trouble installing Perl module under cygwin

Thanks! Downloading and running rebaseall seems to have fixed the problem. Steve Vince Hoffman wrote: looks like a rebase issue, try a google on "cygwin rebase perl" and you should get some hints. -Original Message- From: Steve Kelem [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 14 February 200

Re: mkpasswd: [5] Access is denied.

> I have been unable to successfully run mkpasswd -d since our corporation > upgraded to MS Exchange 2000. When I run > mkpasswd -d > I get the following output > SYSTEM:*:18:544:,S-1-5-18:: > Administrators:*:544:544:,S-1-5-32-544:: > mkpasswd: [5] Access is denied. > > I susp

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 08:07, andrew clarke wrote: > > --08:06:16-- http://cygwin.com/setup.exe > > 4 Last-Modified: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 00:50:47 GMT > > Hmm, nobody is working on it after all? Thats the production release. We change that only when we are *sure* that the new version is fully st

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 04:59:57PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > If you are a nontechnical cygwin user, then why would you be making > > any determination of what is harmless or not harmless? I would think > > that it would be the reverse -- people who really know what they're > > doing

mkpasswd: [5] Access is denied.

I have been unable to successfully run mkpasswd -d since our corporation upgraded to MS Exchange 2000. When I run mkpasswd -d I get the following output SYSTEM:*:18:544:,S-1-5-18:: Administrators:*:544:544:,S-1-5-32-544:: mkpasswd: [5] Access is denied. I suspect this is caused b

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 04:59:57PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: > If you are a nontechnical cygwin user, then why would you be making > any determination of what is harmless or not harmless? I would think > that it would be the reverse -- people who really know what they're > doing (or think

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 08:23, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > Or have > >web crawlers changed such that this doesn't work anymore? > > I'll try that. Thanks. I wouldn't: google actively lowers your page ranking when it sees such garbage. Rob -- GPG key available at:

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 08:31, andrew clarke wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 03:45:37PM +, John M. Adams wrote: > > > How do you get just 1 package via setup.exe? ... > So, to install a single package you will want to mark everything you > already have installed as Keep, and everything else as

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 08:59, Christopher Faylor wrote: > I suppose so, but, again, it seems like many people *recently* are unaware > of the setup program entirely. Hmm, I think we should add a new screen to setup.exe. After the install completes.. "Your cygwin install is now ready to use. Ple

How to convert unicode to Big5 using iconv

Can someone show me some examples on how to use iconv_open and iconv to do conversion between unicode and big5? Thank you -Jeff -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.htm

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 09:28, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > You know, I almost mentioned that but I think that someone (Robert > Collins maybe?) may have suggested this previously and I adamantly > intoned that these were ".tar.bz2 files dammit". We had a long thread on cygwin-apps about this ~

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 05:31:05PM -0500, Rolf Campbell wrote: >Well, I maintain an internal mirror for my company, and I use a custom >python script to parse our custom setup.ini and fetch the needed packages. >But, I never used sources.redhat.com. So, translation: "I have no insight into the pro

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

Well, I maintain an internal mirror for my company, and I use a custom python script to parse our custom setup.ini and fetch the needed packages. But, I never used sources.redhat.com. "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I tried a

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 02:21:18PM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote: >Chris, > >At 13:59 2003-02-14, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:50:48AM +1100, andrew clarke wrote: >>>On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 01:26:15PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> ... >>> >>>If I may, speaking

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

Chris, At 13:59 2003-02-14, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:50:48AM +1100, andrew clarke wrote: >On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 01:26:15PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> ... > >If I may, speaking on behalf of some of the less-technical Cygwin users, >some points: > >Obviously

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:50:48AM +1100, andrew clarke wrote: >On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 01:26:15PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> I tried an experiment recently where I turned on ftp access to the >> cygwin download directory on sources.redhat.com. The result seemed >> to be that people sta

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 03:45:37PM +, John M. Adams wrote: > How do you get just 1 package via setup.exe? When you reach the Select Packages dialog of setup.exe, hit the View button (the tiny one on the upper-right...). In the table there is a column called "New" (I don't know why it's calle

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 12:15:05PM -0800, Peter A. Castro wrote: >On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 07:55:57PM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 06:39:47PM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote: >> >> >Well, Gary (Gary R. Van Sickle) is the

Re: Bash shell

Thorsten, At 13:01 2003-02-14, Thorsten Kampe wrote: * Randall R Schulz (03-02-14 18:28 +0100) > I think we're really getting the tag-team meanness down to a fine art, > aren't we? > > Or is it "good cop / bad cop?" I don't see your point. I stated that there is no Linux nor Cygwin nor Windows

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

andrew clarke wrote: On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:50:48AM +1100, andrew clarke wrote: Section 2 of the FAQ might also put people off using Setup because it's described as a "work-in-progress" and seemingly a bit of a moving target. Actually, just out of interest, will new Setup programs always

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

andrew clarke wrote: > On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:50:48AM +1100, andrew clarke wrote: > >> Section 2 of the FAQ might also put people off using Setup because >> it's described as a "work-in-progress" and seemingly a bit of a >> moving target. > > Actually, just out of interest, will new Setup progr

Re: Problem with accept(2) on the 1003.20.0.0 release

> Cheers to Elfyn! > > > > Do you by any chance have any firewall software running on the daemon'ish > > machine? ZoneAlaram perhaps? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Elfyn McBratney > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > www.exposure.org.uk > > I had version 3.21 of Aventail's connect SW installed on the problem m

RE: Problem with accept(2) on the 1003.20.0.0 release

Cheers to Elfyn! > Do you by any chance have any firewall software running on the daemon'ish > machine? ZoneAlaram perhaps? > > > Regards, > > Elfyn McBratney > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.exposure.org.uk I had version 3.21 of Aventail's connect SW installed on the problem machine. I removed it, re

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

> Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I tried an experiment recently where I turned on ftp access to the > > cygwin download directory on sources.redhat.com. The result seemed > > to be that people started downloading cygwin's package .tar.bz2 files > > directly and (somehow) used

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:50:48AM +1100, andrew clarke wrote: > Section 2 of the FAQ might also put people off using Setup because it's > described as a "work-in-progress" and seemingly a bit of a moving target. Actually, just out of interest, will new Setup programs always be backward-compatibl

Re: Bash shell

* Randall R Schulz (03-02-14 18:28 +0100) > I think we're really getting the tag-team meanness down to a fine art, > aren't we? > > Or is it "good cop / bad cop?" I don't see your point. I stated that there is no Linux nor Cygwin nor Windows nor BSD bash. It's just GNU bash and if you have a "

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 12:15:05PM -0800, Peter A. Castro wrote: > > I don't think people are actually reading that paragraph at all, though. I > > think that's part of the problem. > > As a preventative measure, how about adding some embedded tags into the > cygwin.com home or install pages so

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 01:26:15PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: > I tried an experiment recently where I turned on ftp access to the > cygwin download directory on sources.redhat.com. The result seemed > to be that people started downloading cygwin's package .tar.bz2 files > directly and (som

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I tried an experiment recently where I turned on ftp access to the > cygwin download directory on sources.redhat.com. The result seemed > to be that people started downloading cygwin's package .tar.bz2 files > directly and (somehow) used tar to ext

Re: Bash shell

> Elfyn McBratney wrote: > >>Randall R Schulz wrote: > >> > >>>Hello, Fellow Curmudgeons, > >>> > >>>I think we're really getting the tag-team meanness down to a fine art, > >>>aren't we? > >>> > >>>Or is it "good cop / bad cop?" > >>> > >>>It has recently come to my attention that some people thin

Re: bash shell

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 02/14/2003 03:14:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc:(bcc: Fred Smith/Computrition) Subject: cygwin Digest 14 Feb 2003 20:14:39 - Issue 2563 It has recently come to my attention that some people think the Cygwin list is exceptionally un

RE: cron - Error starting a service: QueryServiceStatus: Win32 error 1062:

Yes, that's unusual. I think I'll leave out a check for this problem at this time. I wonder if anyone knows of a general purpose tool for checking the validity or sanity of the /etc/group and /etc/passwd files? Have you tried adding 'SYSTEM' to group 544 via the /etc/group file? > -Original

Re: Bash shell

Elfyn McBratney wrote: Randall R Schulz wrote: Hello, Fellow Curmudgeons, I think we're really getting the tag-team meanness down to a fine art, aren't we? Or is it "good cop / bad cop?" It has recently come to my attention that some people think the Cygwin list is exceptionally unfriendly to

Re: The humble and other editing keys

* Elfyn McBratney (03-02-14 19:52 +0100) > One thing that I forgot: Bash does have a system-wide inputrc but you have > to define an environment variable to the location of the file, INPUTRC > > export INPUTRC=/etc/inputrc bash doesn't have a "system-wide inputrc" (although you /could/ make one

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 07:55:57PM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 06:39:47PM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > >> >Well, Gary (Gary R. Van Sickle) is the maintainer of that page, so > >> > >> Ack. I missed that fact. >

Re: bash shell

[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 02/14/2003 03:14:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc:(bcc: Fred Smith/Computrition) Subject: cygwin Digest 14 Feb 2003 20:14:39 - Issue 2563 > > It has recently come to my attention that some people think the Cygwin > > list is exceptionally unfriendly to the uni

Re: Bash shell

> Randall R Schulz wrote: > > Hello, Fellow Curmudgeons, > > > > I think we're really getting the tag-team meanness down to a fine art, > > aren't we? > > > > Or is it "good cop / bad cop?" > > > > It has recently come to my attention that some people think the Cygwin > > list is exceptionally unfr

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 07:55:57PM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 06:39:47PM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > >> >Well, Gary (Gary R. Van Sickle) is the maintainer of that page, so > >> > >> Ack. I missed that fact. > >> > >> Don't send Gary email about this! I'm

Re: The humble and other editing keys

Lee, We don't approve of all that humor hereabouts. This one _is_ documented in the BASH manual page. Here's the binding I use: "\M-[3~": delete-char # Delete When you find this Readline action in the BASH manual page, you'll find all the other goodies you can program into B

Re: Bash shell

Randall R Schulz wrote: Hello, Fellow Curmudgeons, I think we're really getting the tag-team meanness down to a fine art, aren't we? Or is it "good cop / bad cop?" It has recently come to my attention that some people think the Cygwin list is exceptionally unfriendly to the uninitiated. Of co

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 06:39:47PM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > >Well, Gary (Gary R. Van Sickle) is the maintainer of that page, so > > Ack. I missed that fact. > > Don't send Gary email about this! I'm sure he doesn't need it. Ops! Too late! ;-) Only kiddin' I'm sure that's not a w

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 07:55:57PM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 06:39:47PM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote: >> >Well, Gary (Gary R. Van Sickle) is the maintainer of that page, so >> >> Ack. I missed that fact. >> >> Don't send Gary email about this! I'm sure he doesn'

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 06:39:47PM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > >Well, Gary (Gary R. Van Sickle) is the maintainer of that page, so > > Ack. I missed that fact. > > Don't send Gary email about this! I'm sure he doesn't need it. Ops! Too late! ;-) Only kiddin' I'm sure that's not a w

Re: Zsh filename completion sluggishness?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 11:38:06AM -0700, Matt Armstrong wrote: >Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 10:12:54AM -0700, Matt Armstrong wrote: >>>In the Win32 world, quotes around path elements are valid. If I have: >>> >>>PATH="c:\foo bar" >>> >>>cmd.exe

Re: The humble and other editing keys

> > * ~/.inputrc works. /etc/inputrc doesn't. Why? > > Aaaah my cockpit error :-) Bash only checks for the existence of the > user's or individuals' readline initialisation file. > > > * Is there documentation for this? Specific to Cygwin? Or, > >not necessary due to complete compatibility.

Re: The humble and other editing keys

> * ~/.inputrc works. /etc/inputrc doesn't. Why? Aaaah my cockpit error :-) Bash only checks for the existence of the user's or individuals' readline initialisation file. > * Is there documentation for this? Specific to Cygwin? Or, >not necessary due to complete compatibility. Does >t

Re: Bash shell

Hello, Fellow Curmudgeons, I think we're really getting the tag-team meanness down to a fine art, aren't we? Or is it "good cop / bad cop?" It has recently come to my attention that some people think the Cygwin list is exceptionally unfriendly to the uninitiated. Of course, I'd just like to t

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 06:39:47PM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote: >Well, Gary (Gary R. Van Sickle) is the maintainer of that page, so Ack. I missed that fact. Don't send Gary email about this! I'm sure he doesn't need it. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simp

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 01:34:59PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> I tried an experiment recently where I turned on ftp access to the >> cygwin download directory on sources.redhat.com. The result seemed >> to be that people started downloading

Re: The humble and other editing keys

Elfyn, Thanks. See my comments and further questions, below. At 2003-02-14 06:18 PM +, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > I want to do what any self-respecting > should do, namely delete the character at the cursor. In bash you can add the following # DEL key in bash "\e[3~": delete-char to you

Re: Problem with accept(2) on the 1003.20.0.0 release

> Dear Tino and the rest of the Cygwin community, > > I made a post yesterday (2/13) on this problem and posted a testAccept.cpp program. By the way, my new version of cygwin and g++ agreed perfectly with Tino's response. Also, tests to use a specific "real" address in the bind( ) call didn't chang

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

At 01:26 PM 2/14/2003 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >So, that experiment was a bad idea. I turned off access again. Yet, I >still have the feeling that many people are downloading packages >directly (from mirrors I suppose) and then we get to experience the >maddening "I downloaded foo and it

RE: Problem with accept(2) on the 1003.20.0.0 release

Dear Tino and the rest of the Cygwin community, I made a post yesterday (2/13) on this problem and posted a testAccept.cpp program. By the way, my new version of cygwin and g++ agreed perfectly with Tino's response. Also, tests to use a specific "real" address in the bind( ) call didn't change t

Re: cron and network drives

Igor Pechtchanski wrote: On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc.) wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, is there a possibility to reach the network drives with cron. My scripts work fine and can reach the network drives when I execute them from command line. With cron there is no e

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

At 10:34 2003-02-14, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: > ... > > Can anyone offer any explanation about this? Or maybe convince me that > I'm wrong in noticing this trend? I suppose that it is possible that > we are now hitting a newer stupider brand of use

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

> On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > I tried an experiment recently where I turned on ftp access to the > > cygwin download directory on sources.redhat.com. The result seemed > > to be that people started downloading cygwin's package .tar.bz2 files > > directly and (somehow) used

Re: Zsh filename completion sluggishness?

Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 10:12:54AM -0700, Matt Armstrong wrote: >>In the Win32 world, quotes around path elements are valid. If I have: >> >>PATH="c:\foo bar" >> >>cmd.exe will find executables in that dir. >> >>When I run bash or zsh, things i

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: > I tried an experiment recently where I turned on ftp access to the > cygwin download directory on sources.redhat.com. The result seemed > to be that people started downloading cygwin's package .tar.bz2 files > directly and (somehow) used tar to ext

Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

I tried an experiment recently where I turned on ftp access to the cygwin download directory on sources.redhat.com. The result seemed to be that people started downloading cygwin's package .tar.bz2 files directly and (somehow) used tar to extract files rather than running setup.exe. So, that expe

Re: cron and network drives

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc.) wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi, > > > > is there a possibility to reach the network drives with cron. My > > scripts work fine and can reach the network drives when I execute them > > from command line. With cron there is no effect. Is

Re: The humble and other editing keys

> Since at least 1979, when I started using Warren Montgomery's > Emacs on System III UNIX, I have been annoyed with DEC's and > RMS's treatment of the (or key as they called > it. In those days, I "reconfigured" my keyboard to fix this > abortion. > > I want to do what any self-respecting sho

Re: The humble and other editing keys

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 07:12:34PM +0100, Thorsten Kampe wrote: >* Lee D. Rothstein (03-02-14 18:44 +0100) >> Since at least 1979, when I started using [...] > >> I want to do what any self-respecting should do, >> namely delete the character at the cursor. >> >> Anyone know how to do this with

Re: The humble and other editing keys

* Lee D. Rothstein (03-02-14 18:44 +0100) > Since at least 1979, when I started using [...] > I want to do what any self-respecting should do, > namely delete the character at the cursor. > > Anyone know how to do this with Cygwin command line editing? Cygwin doesn't have any command line edit

Re: Zsh filename completion sluggishness?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 10:12:54AM -0700, Matt Armstrong wrote: >In the Win32 world, quotes around path elements are valid. If I have: > >PATH="c:\foo bar" > >cmd.exe will find executables in that dir. > >When I run bash or zsh, things in "c:\foo bar" aren't found. This is a UNIX emulation en

The humble and other editing keys

Since at least 1979, when I started using Warren Montgomery's Emacs on System III UNIX, I have been annoyed with DEC's and RMS's treatment of the (or key as they called it. In those days, I "reconfigured" my keyboard to fix this abortion. I want to do what any self-respecting should do, namely

  1   2   >