Re: [ITP] ncdu 1.1
Christian Franke writes: ncdu is a ncurses-based disk usage viewer. It provides a fast and easy-to-use interface through 'du' utility. It allows to browse through the directories and show percentages of disk usage. (http://dev.yorhel.nl/ncdu/) +1 Ciao Volker
RE: [ITP] ncdu 1.1
-Original Message- From: On Behalf Of Christian Franke Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 2:06 PM To: cygwin-apps Subject: [ITP] ncdu 1.1 ncdu is a ncurses-based disk usage viewer. It provides a fast and easy-to-use interface through 'du' utility. It allows to browse through the directories and show percentages of disk usage. (http://dev.yorhel.nl/ncdu/) http://franke.dvrdns.org/cygwin/release/ncdu/ncdu-1.1-1.tar.bz2 http://franke.dvrdns.org/cygwin/release/ncdu/ncdu-1.1-1-src.tar.bz2 http://franke.dvrdns.org/cygwin/release/ncdu/setup.hint Debian: http://packages.debian.org/testing/admin/ncdu Gentoo: http://packages.gentoo.org/search/?sstring=ncdu Christian Incidentally, I downloaded the source from the http://dev.yorhel.nl/ncdu/ and it compiled flawlessly under Cygwin. I ran it and had it start at the root folder, /. I anticipated it taking a very long time to finish, but not hours. I let it run for around four hours during which my processor stayed 90% usage, even with On-access virus scanning disabled. During which time is dug through all of my mapped network drives, my entire local hard drive, and the Windows registry via /proc/registry. It bombed out sometime during the scan of /proc/registry, but I can't be sure exactly where. The display was still there, but it had dropped to a command-line underneath. The path was cut off due to the size of the display box. So, caveat emptor. -Jason PS - I apologize in advance for the legal disclaimer at the bottom of my email message. This is tacked on by our SMTP gateway and I have no control over it. I have a gmail account that I use for my other cygwin subscriptions, but for some reason, never remembered to switch this one over. -- -- Confidentiality notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message from your computer. ==
Re: [ITP] ncdu 1.1
DePriest, Jason R. wrote: ... Incidentally, I downloaded the source from the http://dev.yorhel.nl/ncdu/ and it compiled flawlessly under Cygwin. I ran it and had it start at the root folder, /. I anticipated it taking a very long time to finish, but not hours. I let it run for around four hours during which my processor stayed 90% usage, even with On-access virus scanning disabled. During which time is dug through all of my mapped network drives, my entire local hard drive, and the Windows registry via /proc/registry. Confirmed. Actually ncdu does not handle the special case / and calls e.g. lstat(//bin,.). This is OK on Linux friends, but specifies an UNC path on Cygwin. (I don't know whether POSIX specifies the behaviour on duplicate slashes). ncdu also does not handle the error returned by lstat() in this case. I will provide a fixed package and send the patch upstream. It bombed out sometime during the scan of /proc/registry, but I can't be sure exactly where. The display was still there, but it had dropped to a command-line underneath. The path was cut off due to the size of the display box. Could not reproduce this. Thanks for the info. Christian
[ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: cron-4.1-5
I have updated cron to version 4.1-5 NEWS: cron Add support for the /etc/cron.d directory. (with thanks to Thomas Berger) Please direct all comments and questions to the cygwin list, mentioning cron in the Subject: line and ATTACHING the output of /usr/bin/cronbug. Pierre ** ** CYGWIN-ANNOUNCE UNSUBSCRIBE INFO *** If you want to unsubscribe from the cygwin-announce mailing list, look at the List-Unsubscribe: tag in the email header of this message. Send email to the address specified there. It will be in the format: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you need more information on unsubscribing, start reading here: http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#unsubscribe-simple Please read *all* of the information on unsubscribing that is available starting at this URL. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: folder creation
Hi, jayachandran kamaraj wrote: any folder created by windows inside my documents has just d- the folder needs at least one x set. chmod manually? Erich -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: cron-4.1-5
Pierre A. Humblet wrote: Add support for the /etc/cron.d directory. (with thanks to Thomas Berger) Can you please provide (or point to) a detailed explanation of the change and its impact? -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
cross compilation
Hi I understand that cygwin does not provide glibc. does it provide uclibc ??? if not how can i create a cross compilation tool chain. ICE -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: cross compilation
ICE wrote: I understand that cygwin does not provide glibc. does it provide uclibc ??? No. Cygwin itself is a libc. Therefore there is no need for any other, nor would any other even build, since a libc is a very low level system component. if not how can i create a cross compilation tool chain. Sign. Native and cross are two totally different things. If you've been talking about a cross toolchain this whole time then that changes all the answers. You can't assume we know what you want when you write these terse questions with no details. It is completely possible to build a cross toolchain under Cygwin that includes glibc. See for example the crosstool script and the crossgcc mailing list. But you certainly can't just download glibc and run ./configure, that is a *native* build, and there is no way that will ever work. And just so we're perfectly clear, the resulting output of this cross toolchain would never be executable or usable under Cygwin or under Windows. Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
gcc with glib
Hi there, I'm trying to compile some C program using glib 2.0 and i have some trouble. Here is my command line: gcc -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -l glib-2.0 TestGLib.c First gcc told me it didn't find glibconfig.h, that happened to be in an awkward directory, namely /usr/lib/glib-2.0/include/ Awkward because there was no other files in this directory and all glib header files are in /usr/include/glib-2.0 (in particular glib/gtypes.h that includes glibconfig.h) So i've copied it to the proper directory (and don't ask me why it wasn't there already). First problem fixed. Now my real problem is that gcc doesn't look able to manage link edition: /cygdrive/c/me/LOCALS~1/Temp/ccgMXEyg.o:TestGLib.c:(.text+0x2e): undefined reference to `_g_int_equal' /cygdrive/c/me/LOCALS~1/Temp/ccgMXEyg.o:TestGLib.c:(.text+0x35): undefined reference to `_g_int_hash' /cygdrive/c/me/LOCALS~1/Temp/ccgMXEyg.o:TestGLib.c:(.text+0x3a): undefined reference to `_g_hash_table_new' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status It didn't find the binary code for functions that were declared in glib.h etc. The file /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.a is there though. My version of cygwin: CYGWIN_NT-5.1 Any clues? -- Christophe. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: gcc with glib
PRIEUR Christophe RD-TECH-ISS wrote: Here is my command line: gcc -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -l glib-2.0 TestGLib.c The order of arguments of your command is wrong. The linker works from left to right, resolving undefined references as it goes. If it sees a library specified before any objects using symbols from that library, it won't include anything from the library. Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Cygwin allocted time slice
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:15:40AM +0100, Aaron Gray wrote: Cygwin seems to only use a small amount of time slice relative to the ammount of time slice availiable. Compiles, builds and testsuite are relly slow compared to MinGW which takes too much time. 'time' results confirm this. Process time is about 1/4 of the total system time. It i very noticable on compiling and testing GCC as compared to the same on Linux or MinGW. Is there any way to give Cygwin a bigger slice of the pie ? Say 50% or 75% ? How do you suppose Cygwin is managing this interesting feat of only using some of the CPU time? What Windows API is Cygwin using to just grab a small slice of the time? Weird I was getting very long compile times for GCC and on using 'time' was getting indications that make was only getting 25% of total system time. I'll see if it is repeatable on another system. As a follow-up question: Why do you suppose we are punishing you by not allowing Cygwin to use all of the CPU by default? Oh. Wait. WJM. Nevermind. Weird reply, no need to take the micky ! Aaron -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Cygwin allocted time slice
Weird I was getting very long compile times for GCC and on using 'time' was getting indications that make was only getting 25% of total system time. Sorry that was sys time was 25% of real time. Aaron -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Batch installation, possibly without setup.exe?
Hi, if I want to install a version of Cygwin without user interaction (optimally just dropping a bunch of files via unzip), is that feasible? In particular: does setup.exe fiddle with the registry or other files that can't be just overwritten as a whole? Obviously, one might want to have PATH adjusted, but apart from that? Thanks, -- David Kastrup -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Cygwin allocted time slice
Aaron Gray wrote: On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:15:40AM +0100, Aaron Gray wrote: Cygwin seems to only use a small amount of time slice relative to the ammount of time slice availiable. Compiles, builds and testsuite are relly slow compared to MinGW which takes too much time. 'time' results confirm this. Process time is about 1/4 of the total system time. It i very noticable on compiling and testing GCC as compared to the same on Linux or MinGW. Is there any way to give Cygwin a bigger slice of the pie ? Say 50% or 75% ? Process scheduling is an operating system task. How do you suppose Cygwin is managing this interesting feat of only using some of the CPU time? What Windows API is Cygwin using to just grab a small slice of the time? Weird I was getting very long compile times for GCC and on using 'time' was getting indications that make was only getting 25% of total system time. File IO? I'll see if it is repeatable on another system. As a follow-up question: Why do you suppose we are punishing you by not allowing Cygwin to use all of the CPU by default? Oh. Wait. WJM. Nevermind. Weird reply, no need to take the micky ! Hes trying to tell you you've got the wrong idea. Why try to assert things about time slices when you clearly are not sure about what is going on? Aaron -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Cygwin allocted time slice
Aaron Gray wrote: Weird I was getting very long compile times for GCC and on using 'time' was getting indications that make was only getting 25% of total system time. I'll see if it is repeatable on another system. Hint: Cygwin is slow. Emulating fork() takes a complicated dance between parent and child. A lot of this involves one waiting for the other to complete a stage of initialization. Thus, a Cygwin process that spawns a lot of children does a lot of waiting. It is a price you pay for being able to compile POSIX source unmodified on Windows. Also, I/O. Also, Cygwin is around ten years old now, and people have been complaining that it's slow for approximately 9 years and 364 days. Do you really think that if speeding it up was a matter of just setting some scheduling flag somewhere it would have gone unnoticed all this time? Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Cygwin allocted time slice
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:20:04PM +0100, Aaron Gray wrote: On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:15:40AM +0100, Aaron Gray wrote: Cygwin seems to only use a small amount of time slice relative to the ammount of time slice availiable. Compiles, builds and testsuite are relly slow compared to MinGW which takes too much time. 'time' results confirm this. Process time is about 1/4 of the total system time. It i very noticable on compiling and testing GCC as compared to the same on Linux or MinGW. Is there any way to give Cygwin a bigger slice of the pie ? Say 50% or 75% ? How do you suppose Cygwin is managing this interesting feat of only using some of the CPU time? What Windows API is Cygwin using to just grab a small slice of the time? Weird I was getting very long compile times for GCC and on using 'time' was getting indications that make was only getting 25% of total system time. I'll see if it is repeatable on another system. As a follow-up question: Why do you suppose we are punishing you by not allowing Cygwin to use all of the CPU by default? Oh. Wait. WJM. Nevermind. Weird reply, no need to take the micky ! You have apparently made an assumption that Cygwin is purposely using only a part of the CPU. What's weird about asking for your rationale for why anyone would write a program which did such a thing, leaving it to some undocumented procedure to get better performance? Why do you think we wouldn't just make this the default? In other words: your assumptions don't make a lot of sense. Here are some better assumptions: 1) Hey! Maybe, since 'time' is a linux program, whatever is needed to get it to work accurately isn't well-implemented in Cygwin, so you can't trust its output. 2) Hey! I just remembered that Cygwin is an emulation layer on top of Windows. That means that there is a lot more code being executed than would be the case for MinGW! Maybe *that's* why things are slower! cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Cygwin allocted time slice
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:20:04PM +0100, Aaron Gray wrote: On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:15:40AM +0100, Aaron Gray wrote: Cygwin seems to only use a small amount of time slice relative to the ammount of time slice availiable. Compiles, builds and testsuite are relly slow compared to MinGW which takes too much time. 'time' results confirm this. Process time is about 1/4 of the total system time. It i very noticable on compiling and testing GCC as compared to the same on Linux or MinGW. Is there any way to give Cygwin a bigger slice of the pie ? Say 50% or 75% ? How do you suppose Cygwin is managing this interesting feat of only using some of the CPU time? What Windows API is Cygwin using to just grab a small slice of the time? Weird I was getting very long compile times for GCC and on using 'time' was getting indications that make was only getting 25% of total system time. I'll see if it is repeatable on another system. As a follow-up question: Why do you suppose we are punishing you by not allowing Cygwin to use all of the CPU by default? Oh. Wait. WJM. Nevermind. Weird reply, no need to take the micky ! You have apparently made an assumption that Cygwin is purposely using only a part of the CPU. What's weird about asking for your rationale for why anyone would write a program which did such a thing, leaving it to some undocumented procedure to get better performance? Why do you think we wouldn't just make this the default? In other words: your assumptions don't make a lot of sense. Here are some better assumptions: 1) Hey! Maybe, since 'time' is a linux program, whatever is needed to get it to work accurately isn't well-implemented in Cygwin, so you can't trust its output. 2) Hey! I just remembered that Cygwin is an emulation layer on top of Windows. That means that there is a lot more code being executed than would be the case for MinGW! Maybe *that's* why things are slower! I'll take option 2, thank you :) Aaron -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Cygwin allocted time slice
* Christopher Faylor (Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:45:12 -0400) On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:20:04PM +0100, Aaron Gray wrote: On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:15:40AM +0100, Aaron Gray wrote: Cygwin seems to only use a small amount of time slice relative to the ammount of time slice availiable. Compiles, builds and testsuite are relly slow compared to MinGW which takes too much time. 'time' results confirm this. Process time is about 1/4 of the total system time. It i very noticable on compiling and testing GCC as compared to the same on Linux or MinGW. Is there any way to give Cygwin a bigger slice of the pie ? Say 50% or 75% ? How do you suppose Cygwin is managing this interesting feat of only using some of the CPU time? What Windows API is Cygwin using to just grab a small slice of the time? Weird I was getting very long compile times for GCC and on using 'time' was getting indications that make was only getting 25% of total system time. I'll see if it is repeatable on another system. As a follow-up question: Why do you suppose we are punishing you by not allowing Cygwin to use all of the CPU by default? Oh. Wait. WJM. Nevermind. Weird reply, no need to take the micky ! You have apparently made an assumption that Cygwin is purposely using only a part of the CPU. What's weird about asking for your rationale for why anyone would write a program which did such a thing, leaving it to some undocumented procedure to get better performance? Why do you think we wouldn't just make this the default? Aaron never said that Cygwin /purposely/, /actively/ uses only a small part of the CPU time. Aaron's scenario is perfectly possible: by niceing (assigning a different priority in Windows terms) all Cygwin processes. So there really is no need to mock Aaron. Thorsten -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Batch installation, possibly without setup.exe?
David Kastrup wrote: Hi, if I want to install a version of Cygwin without user interaction (optimally just dropping a bunch of files via unzip), is that feasible? In particular: does setup.exe fiddle with the registry or other files that can't be just overwritten as a whole? Obviously, one might want to have PATH adjusted, but apart from that? Your only supported approach is to use 'setup.exe'. See http://www.math.grinnell.edu/~rebelsky/Courses/CS151/2007S/Readings/prepost.html for more. -- Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office 216 Dalton Rd. (508) 893-9889 - FAX Holliston, MA 01746 _ A: Yes. Q: Are you sure? A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. Q: Why is top posting annoying in email? -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Batch installation, possibly without setup.exe?
if I want to install a version of Cygwin without user interaction (optimally just dropping a bunch of files via unzip), is that feasible? I do this frequently in order to have Cygwin on a USB stick. Building it there using setup would take 2 days (even though it's USB2.0). Copying an existing architecture to it takes less than an hour. It works perfectly, scores of times. Build your preferred version on a host machine. Then Yes, as long as the zipped package that you are copying from host to target is capable of preserving the +R and +S attributes that will be attached to some of the individual files. In particular: does setup.exe fiddle with the registry or other files that can't be just overwritten as a whole? Mainly (entirely?) setup sees to (a) location and (b) mounts. The first (a) is attended to by the fact that you are copying a completely specified architecture from host to target. However (b) you do need to remount your installation once it's in place. You could achieve this with a single once-only .bat command tacked on to the un-zipping process. Obviously, one might want to have PATH adjusted, but apart from that? Why? If your PATH e.g. /home/user/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/usr/bin:/bin (or whatever) works on the host, why would you want to change it on the target? After it's done you might want to fiddle with mkpasswd or mkgroup for individual users on their individual machines, but it's my experience* that you wouldn't actually need to. * What Works For Me might not, for You. And I might have misunderstood what you want. Fergus -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: gcc with glib
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 PRIEUR Christophe RD-TECH-ISS wrote: Here is my command line: gcc -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -l glib-2.0 TestGLib.c gcc -o TestGLib.o TestGLib.c `pkg-config --cflags --libs glib-2.0` (And for your own sake, don't move around files; everything has it's place, and for good reason.) Yaakov -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGchuXpiWmPGlmQSMRCLnOAKDtFWgB1ZXLRwm6djHvPQwxEZa8ngCgwW9v xJaJsvk+lIVBKYFjwWE3cU8= =JUb6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Updated: cron-4.1-5
I have updated cron to version 4.1-5 NEWS: cron Add support for the /etc/cron.d directory. (with thanks to Thomas Berger) Please direct all comments and questions to the cygwin list, mentioning cron in the Subject: line and ATTACHING the output of /usr/bin/cronbug. Pierre ** ** CYGWIN-ANNOUNCE UNSUBSCRIBE INFO *** If you want to unsubscribe from the cygwin-announce mailing list, look at the List-Unsubscribe: tag in the email header of this message. Send email to the address specified there. It will be in the format: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you need more information on unsubscribing, start reading here: http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#unsubscribe-simple Please read *all* of the information on unsubscribing that is available starting at this URL.
