Re: Reg: RSH deamon on cygwin

Manjunatha Appaji Gowda wrote: > I configured the rsh on cygwin as per the > /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/inetutils-1.3.2.README/ > > On Jul 4 15:05, Manjunatha Appaji Gowda wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> Is it possible to configure RSH daemon running on cygwin, so that we can >> connect from Linux machine t

Re: massive heap problems with cygwin 1.7.0

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 08:14:22AM -0600, Bernd Prager wrote: >Hi, > >I am trying to make use of the UTF wide character support in cygwin 1.7 and >tried to give it a shot. >Until now I am almost unable to do anything because I constantly run into >heap problems, like: > >5 [main] ? (5096) D:\bin\cy

Re: Cannot change file permission with either chmod or setfacl

Brian Dessent wrote: Laurent Monnoye wrote: $ chmod 600 foo $ ls -l foo -rw-r--r-- 0 xotrader01 Users 4 Sep 5 18:05 foo You've left out the most relevant detail: what type of filesystem does foo reside on? NTFS, FAT, NFS, Samba? Yep. See the FAQ entry:

Re: Cannot change file permission with either chmod or setfacl

Laurent Monnoye wrote: > $ chmod 600 foo > > $ ls -l foo > -rw-r--r-- 0 xotrader01 Users 4 Sep 5 18:05 foo You've left out the most relevant detail: what type of filesystem does foo reside on? NTFS, FAT, NFS, Samba? Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Pro

Cannot change file permission with either chmod or setfacl

Hello, I'm trying to change the permission of a file from 644 to 600. I've tried chmod and setfacl without success. Can someone please help me with this? Details follow: Platform is XP. $ uname -srv CYGWIN_NT-5.1 1.5.25(0.156/4/2) 2008-06-12 19:34 $ ls -l foo -rw-r--r-- 0 xotrader01 Users 4 S

RE: Reg: RSH deamon on cygwin

Hi all, I configured the rsh on cygwin as per the /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/inetutils-1.3.2.README/ But whenever I am trying to execute some commands from the remote machine I will get the permission denied error Something like in below [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rsh -l peter windowsmachine uname P

RE: setup.exe --quiet-mode

Brian Dessent wrote on 04 September 2008 20:05: > Rob wrote: > >> until you click the OK button. This clearly is not "unattended". It >> would be better if it could just exit with a specific error code that >> you could read and take some action (restart). > > I agree that it's not correct, but