Matt wrote:
> works like a champ.. thanks for the pointer. you've
> never tried to get cygwin to use pageant have you (or
> anybody)?? pageant = putty's ssh agent
No, and I'm pretty sure that it is impossible.
Max.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem rep
works like a champ.. thanks for the pointer. you've
never tried to get cygwin to use pageant have you (or
anybody)?? pageant = putty's ssh agent
--- Max Bowsher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some time ago I (Max Bowsher) wrote:
> > I can now successfully share an ssh-agent between
> all
> > my shel
Some time ago I (Max Bowsher) wrote:
> I can now successfully share an ssh-agent between all
> my shells, with it
> starting with the first one, and ending with the last,
> and no zombie windows
> if I end shells in the wrong order.
Matt wrote:
> I would like ssh-agent to function like you say it
I would like ssh-agent to function like you say it is
for you... but i can't understand what you did besides
obtain the latest versions which i should have.. what
else do i need to do?
-
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 12:43:28PM
Christopher Faylor writes:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 10:59:14AM -0500, Norman Vine wrote:
> >
> >However I am seeing a new twist.
> Corinna noticed something similar. I wonder why something is
> deciding that
> it needs to allocate a console.
>
> The latest snapshot may work better although I
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 10:59:14AM -0500, Norman Vine wrote:
>Christopher Faylor writes:
>> On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 09:22:13PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 12:53:20AM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> >>I can now successfully share an ssh-agent between all my shells, with
Christopher Faylor writes:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 09:22:13PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 12:53:20AM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
> >>I can now successfully share an ssh-agent between all my shells, with
> >>it starting with the first one, and ending with the last, an
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 09:22:13PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 12:53:20AM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>I can now successfully share an ssh-agent between all my shells, with
>>it starting with the first one, and ending with the last, and no zombie
>>windows if I end shel
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 09:34:17PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 09:15:30PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >>I've checked in some changes that seem to fix the reported behavior.
> >>
> >>Does the current snapshot rectify this behavior?
> >
> >Now when I start inetd o
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 09:15:30PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>>I've checked in some changes that seem to fix the reported behavior.
>>
>>Does the current snapshot rectify this behavior?
>
>Now when I start inetd on WinME a DOS Windows pops up.
That would be because the console is now truly d
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 06:50:26PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 12:43:28PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 12:33:04PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 03:33:56PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
> >>>Processes that attem
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 12:53:20AM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>I can now successfully share an ssh-agent between all my shells, with
>it starting with the first one, and ending with the last, and no zombie
>windows if I end shells in the wrong order.
I've noticed this behavior for a while and it ha
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 12:43:28PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 12:33:04PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 03:33:56PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
Processes that attempt to shed their controlling terminal do s
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 12:43:28PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 12:33:04PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 03:33:56PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>>Processes that attempt to shed their controlling terminal do so well enough
>>>for the tty to sh
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 12:33:04PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 03:33:56PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>> Processes that attempt to shed their controlling terminal do so
>>> well enough for the tty to show as ? in ps output, but they still
>
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 12:43:28PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 12:33:04PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 03:33:56PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
> >>I'm not an expert in the ways of Unix ttys. Can anyone help me understand
> >>where the prob
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 12:33:04PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 03:33:56PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>Processes that attempt to shed their controlling terminal do so well enough
>>for the tty to show as ? in ps output, but they still keep the console
>>window they were
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 03:33:56PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>Processes that attempt to shed their controlling terminal do so well enough
>for the tty to show as ? in ps output, but they still keep the console
>window they were launched from open, after all other processes using it have
>exited.
>
18 matches
Mail list logo
