On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 10:36:16AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Feb 24 18:02, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 04:41:08PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
I guess --mount-mode, to make it explicit. For a short option, -M seems
unused.
I thought about that but it's not
Hallo Igor,
24. Februar 2004 at 21:00:
gcc-mingw*.sh: ln
Note: uses tar, but tar is not required. Also, do we *really*
want this weird extraction mechanism?
Package tar is in base.
I remember that there was a reason for this mechanism, but I cannot
what the reason was.
Gerrit
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 08:26:18PM +0100, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Hallo Igor,
24. Februar 2004 at 21:00:
gcc-mingw*.sh: ln
Note: uses tar, but tar is not required. Also, do we *really*
want this weird extraction mechanism?
Package tar is in base.
I remember that there was a reason
Hi,
Someone was installing Cygwin from scratch on a clean system, and they had
a problem running the postinstall scripts. On further investigation, it
turned out that most of the scripts assume /bin is going to be in the
PATH, and that it's going to precede any other directories (even the
script
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 03:00:11PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
Someone was installing Cygwin from scratch on a clean system, and they
had a problem running the postinstall scripts. On further
investigation, it turned out that most of the scripts assume /bin is
going to be in the PATH, and
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 03:00:11PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
Someone was installing Cygwin from scratch on a clean system, and they
had a problem running the postinstall scripts. On further
investigation, it turned out that most of the
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 07:04, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Wow. I can't believe I fell into this trap. I have been writing shell
scripts for a long long time and should know better.
Thanks for the heads up. I suspect that this accounts for some strange
installation problems.
Would it be
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 07:12, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
This might work, except that a) postinstall scripts on the whole are
updated more often and more easily than setup.exe (i.e., this solution
won't help people using the version of setup.exe they already have on
their computer, so the
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
XFree86-f*.sh: umount, cygpath, mount
Note: the above script should also check that the directory is
already mounted in the correct mode instead of unmounting and
remounting it all the time.
The reason we force an unmount is that the mount point
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Robert Collins wrote:
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 07:12, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
This might work, except that a) postinstall scripts on the whole are
updated more often and more easily than setup.exe (i.e., this solution
won't help people using the version of setup.exe
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 07:21, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
Rob,
However, the postinstall scripts did fail to run correctly (for some
reason or another), and I just assumed that this was the reason. Even if
it isn't, the scripts still needs to be fixed, IMO.
Ok, so the question is why didn't
Igor,
So, can I get an example of how to do this setting of the PATH? Is it
as easy as:
PATH=/bin
???
Is it going to be a problem to have #!/bin/bash or #!/bin/sh at the
top of the script? If so, what should that be instead?
Harold
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
XFree86-f*.sh: umount, cygpath, mount
Note: the above script should also check that the directory is
already mounted in the correct mode instead of unmounting and
remounting it all the time.
The
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
Igor,
So, can I get an example of how to do this setting of the PATH? Is it
as easy as:
PATH=/bin
???
Almost. IMO, it should be
PATH=/bin:$PATH
export PATH
instead. But I may be wrong, and there may be no reason to keep the old
$PATH
Igor,
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
XFree86-f*.sh: umount, cygpath, mount
Note: the above script should also check that the directory is
already mounted in the correct mode instead of unmounting and
remounting it
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 07:16:26AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 07:12, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
This might work, except that a) postinstall scripts on the whole are
updated more often and more easily than setup.exe (i.e., this solution
won't help people using the version of
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 07:39, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
I'm updating the xfig setup.hint files right now. I am also fixing the
longstanding issue of depending upon ghostscript instead of
'ghostscript-x11 ghostscript-base'. This has caused numerous compliants
about being unable to export
Robert Collins wrote:
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 07:39, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
I'm updating the xfig setup.hint files right now. I am also fixing the
longstanding issue of depending upon ghostscript instead of
'ghostscript-x11 ghostscript-base'. This has caused numerous compliants
about being
Harold,
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
Igor,
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
XFree86-f*.sh: umount, cygpath, mount
Note: the above script should also check that the directory is
already mounted
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 07:49, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
I suggest that it does make sense to put in an explicit dependency on
some such packages, though perhaps not all such packages, because if a
user already has ghostscript-x11 and ghostscript-base installed, then
manually uninstalls
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 03:52:44PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
I'm not sure if it would be easy to test that the path pointed to by a
mount is valid and writable? Do you know of a clean way to do it?
Umm, why not just test [ -w /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts ]? But as for
checking that it's
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 04:16:48PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 03:52:44PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
I'm not sure if it would be easy to test that the path pointed to by a
mount is valid and writable? Do you know of a clean way to do it?
Umm, why not just test
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 03:52:44PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
I'm not sure if it would be easy to test that the path pointed to by a
mount is valid and writable? Do you know of a clean way to do it?
Umm, why not just test [ -w
I have updated the xfig and xfig-lib packages with the requested
changes, along with fixes for other problems that I noticed upon
revisiting the package.
Harold
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 04:41:08PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 03:52:44PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
I'm not sure if it would be easy to test that the path pointed to by a
mount is valid and writable? Do you
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Warren Young wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Is there a better name than --mode?
It might be easier to use in a script if the syntax were more like this:
if [ cygpath --is-binary /tmp ] ; then
In this case, it'll be if cygpath --is-binary /tmp; then...
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 05:03:27PM -0700, Warren Young wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Is there a better name than --mode?
It might be easier to use in a script if the syntax were more like this:
if [ cygpath --is-binary /tmp ] ; then
Except that I'm returning either binary or text which
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 07:12:18PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Warren Young wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Is there a better name than --mode?
It might be easier to use in a script if the syntax were more like this:
if [ cygpath --is-binary /tmp ] ; then
28 matches
Mail list logo
