Re: [PATCH] cygcheck -s should not imply -d

2011-01-13 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 01:33:36PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Jan 11 14:26, Jon TURNEY wrote: >> On 11/01/2011 08:10, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> > I wasn't quite sure either, but while running cygcheck with Jon's patch >> > it started to make more sense. We can also change the docs to ask

Re: [PATCH] cygcheck -s should not imply -d

2011-01-13 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Jan 13 13:04, Jon TURNEY wrote: > On 13/01/2011 12:33, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Jan 11 14:26, Jon TURNEY wrote: > >> On 11/01/2011 08:10, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >>> I wasn't quite sure either, but while running cygcheck with Jon's patch > >>> it started to make more sense. We can also

Re: [PATCH] cygcheck -s should not imply -d

2011-01-13 Thread Jon TURNEY
On 13/01/2011 12:33, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Jan 11 14:26, Jon TURNEY wrote: >> On 11/01/2011 08:10, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>> I wasn't quite sure either, but while running cygcheck with Jon's patch >>> it started to make more sense. We can also change the docs to ask for >>> `cygcheck -svr

Re: [PATCH] cygcheck -s should not imply -d

2011-01-13 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Jan 11 14:26, Jon TURNEY wrote: > On 11/01/2011 08:10, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > I wasn't quite sure either, but while running cygcheck with Jon's patch > > it started to make more sense. We can also change the docs to ask for > > `cygcheck -svrd' output, but I guess we should just wait and s

Re: [PATCH] cygcheck -s should not imply -d

2011-01-11 Thread Jon TURNEY
On 11/01/2011 08:10, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Jan 10 12:52, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 01:51:02PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>> On Jan 5 19:50, Jon TURNEY wrote: Currently, for cygcheck -s implies -d. This seems rather unhelpful. I'm afraid I

Re: [PATCH] cygcheck -s should not imply -d

2011-01-11 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Jan 10 12:52, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 01:51:02PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Jan 5 19:50, Jon TURNEY wrote: > >> > >> Currently, for cygcheck -s implies -d. This seems rather unhelpful. > >> > >> I'm afraid I've lost the thread which inspired this, but in

Re: [PATCH] cygcheck -s should not imply -d

2011-01-10 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 01:51:02PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Jan 5 19:50, Jon TURNEY wrote: >> >> Currently, for cygcheck -s implies -d. This seems rather unhelpful. >> >> I'm afraid I've lost the thread which inspired this, but in it the reporter >> provided cygcheck -svr output as re

Re: [PATCH] cygcheck -s should not imply -d

2011-01-10 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Jan 5 19:50, Jon TURNEY wrote: > > Currently, for cygcheck -s implies -d. This seems rather unhelpful. > > I'm afraid I've lost the thread which inspired this, but in it the reporter > provided cygcheck -svr output as requested, but this did not help diagnose > what ultimately turned out to