On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:31:08PM -0500, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 12:06:08PM -0500, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >> >However, most bash invocations should exit with a 0 exit c
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:31:08PM -0500, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 12:06:08PM -0500, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>> >However, most bash invocations should exit with a 0 exit code. So, why
>> >not simply do something like the test b
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't that be:
> >
> > if not errorlevel 0 pause
>
> Contrary to all common sense, "if not errorlevel A" means "if %ERRORLEVEL%
> < A", not an equality test... So the above will *always* pause. A
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 12:06:08PM -0500, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >However, most bash invocations should exit with a 0 exit code. So, why
> >not simply do something like the test below?
> >
> >if not errorlevel 1 goto nopause
> >pause
> >:nopause
>
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 12:06:08PM -0500, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>However, most bash invocations should exit with a 0 exit code. So, why
>not simply do something like the test below?
>
>if not errorlevel 1 goto nopause
>pause
>:nopause
>
>Also, "command not found" sets error code to 127, so the "1"
On 01 February 2006 17:06, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>
> Also, "command not found" sets error code to 127, so the "1" above can be
> changed to "127". Igor
ITYM '9009'?
--e.g.--
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copy
On 1/31/06, Brian Dessent wrote:
> Well that would certainly work for the case of a missing bash. I guess
> I was thinking that the marker file method would work for a wider range
> of brokenness where for whatever reason the shell fails to start and/or
> complete its initialization. Having never
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 08:16:15PM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote:
> >Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>Couldn't it just replace the bash line with:
> >>
> >> if exist bash.exe goto ok
> >> echo bash.exe is missing - please install it
> >> pause
> >>
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 08:16:15PM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Couldn't it just replace the bash line with:
>>
>> if exist bash.exe goto ok
>> echo bash.exe is missing - please install it
>> pause
>> :ok
>> bash --login -i
>
>Well that would certainly work for
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Couldn't it just replace the bash line with:
>
> if exist bash.exe goto ok
> echo bash.exe is missing - please install it
> pause
> :ok
> bash --login -i
Well that would certainly work for the case of a missing bash. I guess
I was thinking that the mar
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 07:38:31PM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Harry Putnam wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Blake) writes:
>>
>> > If you expect help, then try opening a plain cmd.com window
>> > first, running bash there and seeing if any error messages
>> > appear. Also, send, as a text
Harry Putnam wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Blake) writes:
>
> > If you expect help, then try opening a plain cmd.com window
> > first, running bash there and seeing if any error messages
> > appear. Also, send, as a text attachment, the output of
> > 'cygcheck -svr'.
>
> When trying the cm
12 matches
Mail list logo
