Original Message
>From: Jason Tishler
>Sent: 15 July 2005 22:00
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 01:21:11PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Reading the .gz files will probably be the worst bit of it!
>
> Actually, the above was much easier than I thought.
> #include
> gzFile file
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 10:18:26AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 07:27:27AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
> >So, it sounds like we have short and long term plans. Now, I just
> >have to work 'em.
>
> Is it done yet?
Yes.
> Is it done yet?
Yes.
> Is it done yet?
Yes
Jason Tishler wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 01:21:11PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
Original Message
From: Jason Tishler
Sent: 15 July 2005 12:27
Exactly! Right after my previous post, I started to investigate
enhancing rebase to support rebaseall functionality. I quickly
realized t
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 01:21:11PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Original Message
> >From: Jason Tishler
> >Sent: 15 July 2005 12:27
>
> > Exactly! Right after my previous post, I started to investigate
> > enhancing rebase to support rebaseall functionality. I quickly
> > realized that this
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 07:27:27AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
>So, it sounds like we have short and long term plans. Now, I just have
>to work 'em.
Is it done yet?
Is it done yet?
Is it done yet?
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: ht
Original Message
>From: Jason Tishler
>Sent: 15 July 2005 12:27
> Exactly! Right after my previous post, I started to investigate
> enhancing rebase to support rebaseall functionality. I quickly realized
> that this change would not require too much effort.
Reading the .gz files will
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 04:01:08PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 07:55:52AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 11:50:08PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> OTOH, writing a mingw C program to do what rebaseall does wouldn't
> >> be *that* hard.
>
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 07:55:52AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 10:08:33PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:43:07AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
>> >My inclination is to convert rebaseall to an ash script.
>>
>> Once again, let me point out -- t
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 02:12:19PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>Original Message
>>From: Jason Tishler
>>Sent: 14 July 2005 12:56
>
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 10:08:33PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:43:07AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
My inclination is to
Original Message
>From: Gerrit P. Haase
>Sent: 14 July 2005 16:58
> Dave Korn wrote:
>
> I was also wondering whether really it shouldn't be part of setup.exe
> I'm all against including it into the setup step. [ ...] so I
> don't think it should be a default step when setting up Cygwi
Original Message
>From: Dave Korn
>Sent: 14 July 2005 16:29
> I was also wondering
> whether really it shouldn't be part of setup.exe
[thinking out loud]
D'oh, no, that's silly. It should be part of rebase.exe; might as well
just patch the rebaseall script functionality right into
Dave Korn wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 11:50:08PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
OTOH, writing a mingw C program to do what rebaseall does wouldn't be
*that* hard.
Agreed.
Once again, let me point out -- that will not solve the problem. You
won't be able to run the mingw executable
Original Message
>From: Gerrit P. Haase
>Sent: 14 July 2005 16:00
> Dave Korn wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 11:50:08PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>
OTOH, writing a mingw C program to do what rebaseall does wouldn't be
*that* hard.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>
>> Once again
Dave Korn wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 11:50:08PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
OTOH, writing a mingw C program to do what rebaseall does wouldn't be
*that* hard.
Agreed.
Once again, let me point out -- that will not solve the problem. You
won't be able to run the mingw executable
Original Message
>From: Jason Tishler
>Sent: 14 July 2005 12:56
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 10:08:33PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:43:07AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
>>> My inclination is to convert rebaseall to an ash script.
>>
>> Once again, let me poi
Dave Korn wrote:
> Out of curiosity, why isn't "exec /bin/sh.exe rebaseall" the solution to
> this problem?
It would, presuming you meant /bin/ash.exe and the user hadn't removed
the ash package. It would help if the rebaseall shebang was #!/bin/ash,
then you could type "exec rebaseall".
I su
Original Message
>From: Jason Tishler
>Sent: 14 July 2005 12:56
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 10:08:33PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:43:07AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
>>> My inclination is to convert rebaseall to an ash script.
>>
>> Once again, let me poi
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 10:08:33PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:43:07AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
> >My inclination is to convert rebaseall to an ash script.
>
> Once again, let me point out -- that will not solve the problem. You
> won't be able to run the scri
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:43:07AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 11:50:38PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:24:20PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>> >But what was wrong with my idea of making rebaseall a #!/bin/ash
>> >script?
>>
>> You still couldn
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 11:50:38PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:24:20PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> >But what was wrong with my idea of making rebaseall a #!/bin/ash
> >script?
>
> You still couldn't run the script from bash since the dlls would still
> be loaded.
Christopher Faylor wrote:
But what was wrong with my idea of making rebaseall a #!/bin/ash script?
You still couldn't run the script from bash since the dlls would still
be loaded. That would mean that you'd have to do something like:
c:\>ash rebaseall
(Currently rebaseall won't work as an
Adye, TJ (Tim) sagte:
> Answering my own question
>> cygiconv-2.dll is used by bash, but rebaseall is a bash script.
>> What can I do?
>
> I found I could do this by saving the rebase command-line and file list
> that rebaseall generates and then running the rebase command directly
> from the DOS p
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:24:20PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>According to Christopher Faylor on 7/7/2005 8:05 PM:
>>>Option B would be to write a C or C++ program to do the job of what
>>>rebaseall currently does. That's even more work.
>>
>> I was going to suggest that but it requires that the u
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:21:29PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 06:41:31PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>>
>> >Option B would be to write a C or C++ program to do the job of what
>> >rebaseall currently does. That's even
Eric Blake wrote:
> Except that even the /bin/sh postinstalls often did mv, cp, or some other
> action involving one of the coreutils. It's hard to do much of anything
> without using the coreutils, which have depended on iconv and intl since
> their 5.2.1 days.
You're right. As I said, I hadn'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Brian Dessent on 7/7/2005 8:21 PM:
>>coreutils already requires libintl and libiconv since 5.2.1 days, so most
>>useful actions in a postinstall script have already depended on having
>>libraries available as part of Base. Based on severa
Eric Blake wrote:
> Or, you could make rebaseall a #!/bin/ash script, which would require that
> we never kill ash from the distribution, while freeing you from bash's
> dynamic linking.
Ah, hadn't thought of that. This seems like the best short-term
solution, since it involves minimal changes.
Eric Blake wrote:
> coreutils already requires libintl and libiconv since 5.2.1 days, so most
> useful actions in a postinstall script have already depended on having
> libraries available as part of Base. Based on several months of no
> complaints, I think we can discount the theoretical problem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Christopher Faylor on 7/7/2005 8:05 PM:
>>Option B would be to write a C or C++ program to do the job of what
>>rebaseall currently does. That's even more work.
>
> I was going to suggest that but it requires that the user had loaded
> t
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 06:41:31PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>
> >Option B would be to write a C or C++ program to do the job of what
> >rebaseall currently does. That's even more work.
>
> I was going to suggest that but it requires that the user
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 06:41:31PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>I think we will require a statically linked bash, or some kind of
>>>trickery in the rebaseall script. One potential way around this might
>>>be for it to output a .cmd file (or .bat under 9x, grrr) and th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Brian Dessent on 7/7/2005 7:41 PM:
>
> Option B would be to write a C or C++ program to do the job of what
> rebaseall currently does. That's even more work.
True - there are many actions where scripts are just more convenient than
full
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >I think we will require a statically linked bash, or some kind of
> >trickery in the rebaseall script. One potential way around this might
> >be for it to output a .cmd file (or .bat under 9x, grrr) and then exec()
> >$COMSPEC to run the commands. This would have the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Brian Dessent on 7/7/2005 7:15 PM:
> This is a problem with the new bash version 3.0, which is dynamically
> linked to the readline, libiconv, and ncurses DLLs:
>
> The prior version of bash, 2.05b-17, is statically linked:
The problem i
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 06:15:36PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>I think we will require a statically linked bash, or some kind of
>trickery in the rebaseall script. One potential way around this might
>be for it to output a .cmd file (or .bat under 9x, grrr) and then exec()
>$COMSPEC to run the co
"Adye, TJ (Tim)" wrote:
> % rebaseall
> ReBaseImage (/usr/bin/cygiconv-2.dll) failed with last error = 6
>
> cygiconv-2.dll is used by bash, but rebaseall is a bash script. What can
> I do?
This is a problem with the new bash version 3.0, which is dynamically
linked to the readline, libiconv, an
At 02:54 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:
>Hi Larry,
>
>Sorry, I assumed that the rebasing problem was ancient history, since I
>hadn't encountered it for so long (and remembered a long-ago comment
>about rebaseall being a stop-gap measure). Thanks for putting me right.
Well, it's not entirely a stop-gap
x27;s Win32::Shortcut and fork work together!
Thanks for the hint.
Nevertheless, there does seem to be a problem with the rebaseall.
Tim.
> -Original Message-
> From: Adye, TJ (Tim)
> Sent: 07 July 2005 19:55
> To: 'Cygwin List'
> Subject: RE: Perl Win32::Shortcut scre
(/usr/bin/cygiconv-2.dll) failed with last error = 6
cygiconv-2.dll is used by bash, but rebaseall is a bash script. What can
I do?
Thanks,
Tim.
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Hall
> Sent: 07 July 2005 19:09
> To: Adye, TJ (Tim); cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: Perl Win32
At 01:10 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:
>In an attempt to work round the problem with readshortcut I reported
>earlier, I thought I'd use a Perl script. Unfortunately the
>Win32::Shortcut package seems to cause problems with process forking
>(unlike the readshortcut error, this one isn't specific to the l
Hi,
In an attempt to work round the problem with readshortcut I reported
earlier, I thought I'd use a Perl script. Unfortunately the
Win32::Shortcut package seems to cause problems with process forking
(unlike the readshortcut error, this one isn't specific to the latest
cygwin DLL). I get an erro
41 matches
Mail list logo
