Brian Dessent wrote:
Carlo Florendo wrote:
On a curious note, why do the inetutils apps like ftp, telnet, etc.
still use getservbyname() and the other getserv functions when, as you
said,
these apps could just have the port and protocol hardcoded or specified
in a config file?
As far as I
Carlo Florendo wrote:
> On a curious note, why do the inetutils apps like ftp, telnet, etc.
> still use getservbyname() and the other getserv functions when, as you
> said,
> these apps could just have the port and protocol hardcoded or specified
> in a config file?
As far as I know that traces
Hello Brian,
What we had was *not* a cygwin problem after all...
Brian Dessent wrote:
Carlo Florendo wrote:
Anyway, I got this error:
getservbyname() returned NULL: win32 error 11004
Googling shows that this is consistent with trying to run a
program/server that tries to look up its port in
Dave Korn schrieb:
Time to start suspecting LSP problems, which I think are known to
sometimes damage the getXbyY functions. Maybe "netsh winsock reset catalog"
(sp2 only) or http://www.cexx.org/lspfix.htm could help?
Thanks. This saved my day!
(Babylon was my culprit, but gDivx is also very com
> -Original Message-
> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen
> Sent: 13 October 2004 09:43
> On Oct 13 00:05, Brian Dessent wrote:
> > Carlo Florendo wrote:
> >
> > > Here's what I got:
> > >
> > > getservbyname() returned NULL: Operation not permitted
>
> Not good.
Time
Carlo Florendo wrote:
> Anyway, I got this error:
>
> getservbyname() returned NULL: win32 error 11004
Googling shows that this is consistent with trying to run a
program/server that tries to look up its port in the services file when
no such matching line exists.
> I also read the message rega
Brian Dessent wrote:
Brian Dessent wrote:
cat
On Oct 13 00:05, Brian Dessent wrote:
> Carlo Florendo wrote:
>
> > Here's what I got:
> >
> > getservbyname() returned NULL: Operation not permitted
Not good.
> Perhaps the line endings got screwed up in your services file at some
> point? They should be DOS (\r\n) not unix (\n).
AFAIK and A
Carlo Florendo wrote:
> >Correction: add "-lws2_32" to the gcc options.
>
> Oh, thank you. I've actually done it and my previous post actually
> shows the output of the executable compiled with
>
> gcc -mno-cygwin -lws2_32 getservbyname-mingw.c
>
> There's something definitely wrong here. I k
Brian Dessent wrote:
Brian Dessent wrote:
cat
Carlo Florendo wrote:
> Here's what I got:
>
> getservbyname() returned NULL: Operation not permitted
Hmm. That's the same thing I get if I rename my "services" file to
something else so that it's not found. But it seems we've already
thoroughly checked that. If you also get win32 error 11004
Hello Brian,
Brian Dessent wrote:
Carlo Florendo wrote:
File: inetutils-1.3.2-28 /ftp/main.c (line numbers preceed each line)
147 sp = getservbyname("ftp", "tcp");
148 if (sp == 0)
149 errx(1, "ftp/tcp: unknown service");
Okay, so the 'SYSTEM' thing was a red herring, and
Brian Dessent wrote:
> cat getservbyname-mingw.c -o getservbyname-mingw && ./getservbyname-mingw
Correction: add "-lws2_32" to the gcc options.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.c
Carlo Florendo wrote:
> File: inetutils-1.3.2-28 /ftp/main.c (line numbers preceed each line)
>
> 147 sp = getservbyname("ftp", "tcp");
> 148 if (sp == 0)
> 149 errx(1, "ftp/tcp: unknown service");
Okay, so the 'SYSTEM' thing was a red herring, and you're just running
this from
Brian Dessent wrote:
Carlo Florendo wrote:
Thank you so much for your comments!However, updating the relevant
directories to have +x, and updating all the relevant files to have +rx
still didn't solve the issue. I've tried to track down the problem via
the source code of inetutils-1.3.2-28
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 08:14:50PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
Carlo Florendo wrote:
Thank you so much for your comments!However, updating the relevant
directories to have +x, and updating all the relevant files to have +rx
still didn't solve the issue. I've t
Hello Brian,
Brian Dessent wrote:
Carlo Florendo wrote:
Thank you so much for your comments!However, updating the relevant
directories to have +x, and updating all the relevant files to have +rx
still didn't solve the issue. I've tried to track down the problem via
the source code of inetut
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 08:14:50PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Carlo Florendo wrote:
>>Thank you so much for your comments!However, updating the relevant
>>directories to have +x, and updating all the relevant files to have +rx
>>still didn't solve the issue. I've tried to track down the prob
Hello Igor,
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
Carlo,
See comments inline below.
Thank you so much for your comments!However, updating the relevant
directories to have +x, and updating all the relevant files to have +rx
still didn't solve the issue. I've tried to track down the problem via
the sourc
Carlo,
See comments inline below.
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Carlo Florendo wrote:
Hello,
I've recently searched the archives for problems regarding cygwin unable
to do ftp and came across the thead entitled "1.5.11 - tcp problems"
which was started on September 14. I've replied to the last message in
th
Hello,
I've recently searched the archives for problems regarding cygwin unable
to do ftp and came across the thead entitled "1.5.11 - tcp problems"
which was started on September 14. I've replied to the last message in
the thread (since the problem seemed not to be solved on the mailing list.)
21 matches
Mail list logo
