From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Greg Fodor" To: Subject: RE: Windows XP Fix Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 10:55:00 -0000 Message-id: <000001c13958$95e9fe50$9801a8c0@fuzzy> References: <20010909125418.D8196@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00438.html No need to get nasty. Christ. I spent like 3 hours screwing around with my cygwin install and surfing archives in order to get it working under XP for the time being until someone fixes cygwin1.dll. I offered my hacked solution, something I did to get _my work done_ as a temporary way of working around the problem until the correct solution is found. I didn't investigate into the September 1st cygwin1.dll snap yet, though I'm guessing that's the optimal solution. Regardless, you should offer your users *something* on the webpage. The "sorry, come back later" message there now, frankly, blows, since more information is available for people who want to spend the extra effort to get their stuff working. The fact that some people have gotten XP working by changing the DLL, or by switching bash.exe, is enough to warrant a quick-fix note on the page to avoid the hassle of forcing users to figure it out on their own. Don't you care that people are pissed off right now because cygwin is broken on XP? (Which BTW, is in the hands of OEMs and being installed on PCs as I write this, AFAIK.) If you are waiting for the retail release, people who have XP on their computers now from OEMs and beta people will be forced to wait another month and have broken systems. I realize that it doesn't make any sense as to why running programs from within an old copy of bash keeps the problem from occurring, but the fact is it does and I can now run my PostgreSQL server within bash on XP whereas I normally couldn't. The point is, nobody gives a damn about the reason something is broken, simply enough, it's broken. If my sink is leaking all over my floor and all I have is the piece of gum in my mouth to fix it for the time being, then, fuck yes, I'll use the gum until the plumber gets there. I'm not "confused" and of course I know what tcsh is... I never said that my fix is "the" solution; I said it's a fix for the time being. I subscribed to this list in order to post what I had found so as to help others, and I get ridiculed. Very nice of you, I'll be polite and assume you don't represent the rest of your peers. -Greg -----Original Message----- From: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com [ mailto:cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com ] On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 12:54 PM To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Windows XP Fix On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 11:30:47AM -0400, Greg Fodor wrote: >Well, I was getting a error in allocating the heap when running a cygwin >program within another cygwin program (this, from reading the archives, >seems to be the main Windows XP issue.) The error disappeared completely >by replacing bash.exe from the older install and executing programs from >within that shell. If I try to execute programs from within cmd.exe >which call other programs (tar cfz for example, which executes gzip from >within tar) the problem persists.. however from within the older >bash.exe it does not occur. > >I figured this out via a painful process of elimination of files between >an older copied functional install on XP and a newly installed from the >net non-functional install on XP. > >Regardless of what you state the problem to be, I'm running a handful of >daemons and working in a cygwin environment under Windows XP as I type >this and was not able to do so until I copied over the old bash.exe. I >don't know enough about cygwin's internals to extrapolate what this >means, but that's what I have to present to the list for people who are >having the same problem. Did you even read what I said? Do you know what "tcsh" is by any chance? It's an alternate shell to bash. It's *known* to fail on Windows XP. inetd is known to fail on Windows XP. How would suggesting that people change to some other version of bash solve their problems? What you're basically saying is "I'm completely ignorant of anything that is going on. However I found a magic incantation that works fine so I'm using that. Please don't confuse me with your silly attempts to explain the situation to me. I must now walk widdershins around my computer. Where is that chicken...?" >Basically the internal nature of the issue makes no difference to me >(nor, I'd guess, to 99% of the people who want cygwin to run on XP.) >Upon your own investigation and confirmation, it might be a good idea to >put a small blurb on the front page as this being a temporary quick fix >to the problem. I'm not investigating or confirming anything. The statement on the main page stays until Windows XP is released. You can probably consult some Tarot cards to figure out when that will be. cgf >-----Original Message----- >From: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com >[ mailto:cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com ] On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor >Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 1:12 AM >To: cygwin@cygwin.com >Subject: Re: Windows XP Fix > >On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 11:53:48PM -0400, Greg Fodor wrote: >>I was able to get rid of the Windows XP issue of being unable to >>allocate the heap by copying bash.exe from my bash-2.04-7a.tar.gz >>installation on another PC. (I think that's the version I was using.) >> >>Hopefully this resolves the issue completely (for the time being) until >>bash is updated upon the release of XP. > >Any problems with Cygwin under Windows XP are not related to bash. > >There have been reported problems under tcsh, too. > >When this is eventually fixed (when XP becomes an actual released >product), it will require changes to the Cygwin DLL. > >The Cygwin DLL != bash. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/