Re: sources

Re: sources

[Earnie Boyd]

ftp sourceware.cygnus.com
anonymous
email password
cd pub/cygwin/latest
binary
mget *src*bz2
bye

Regards,
Earnie

P.S.:  Use ftp not the browser to ensure that it will download
correctly.

---Don Sharp <Don.Sharp@dddandr.octacon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Before the list gets too picky to answer questions from those of us
who
> can't seem to navigate the cygwin site, would someone kindly tell me
> where I can find the actual cygwin sources of all the bits that
> accompany cygwin1.dll in full.exe.
> 
> As Chris is in denial mode wrt ash I'll need to have a go at fixing
the
> missing character problem in the pattern match. (He is right in saying
> that it isn't something that the Bourne shell can do anyway so
what/who
> decides the correct behaviour is possibly a moot point).
> 
> TIA
> 
> Don Sharp
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: sources

[Don Sharp]

A special thanks for all your efforts which has saved many of us hours
of fiddling about.

Thank you

Don Sharp

Earnie Boyd wrote:
> 
> ftp sourceware.cygnus.com
> anonymous
> email password
> cd pub/cygwin/latest
> binary
> mget *src*bz2
> bye
> 
> Regards,
> Earnie
> 
> P.S.:  Use ftp not the browser to ensure that it will download
> correctly.
> 
> ---Don Sharp <Don.Sharp@dddandr.octacon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Before the list gets too picky to answer questions from those of us
> who
> > can't seem to navigate the cygwin site, would someone kindly tell me
> > where I can find the actual cygwin sources of all the bits that
> > accompany cygwin1.dll in full.exe.
> >
> > As Chris is in denial mode wrt ash I'll need to have a go at fixing
> the
> > missing character problem in the pattern match. (He is right in saying
> > that it isn't something that the Bourne shell can do anyway so
> what/who
> > decides the correct behaviour is possibly a moot point).
> >
> > TIA
> >
> > Don Sharp
> >
> >
> 
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: sources

[Don Sharp]

A special thanks for all your efforts which has saved many of us hours
of fiddling about.

Thank you

Don Sharp

Earnie Boyd wrote:
> 
> ftp sourceware.cygnus.com
> anonymous
> email password
> cd pub/cygwin/latest
> binary
> mget *src*bz2
> bye
> 
> Regards,
> Earnie
> 
> P.S.:  Use ftp not the browser to ensure that it will download
> correctly.
> 
> ---Don Sharp <Don.Sharp@dddandr.octacon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Before the list gets too picky to answer questions from those of us
> who
> > can't seem to navigate the cygwin site, would someone kindly tell me
> > where I can find the actual cygwin sources of all the bits that
> > accompany cygwin1.dll in full.exe.
> >
> > As Chris is in denial mode wrt ash I'll need to have a go at fixing
> the
> > missing character problem in the pattern match. (He is right in saying
> > that it isn't something that the Bourne shell can do anyway so
> what/who
> > decides the correct behaviour is possibly a moot point).
> >
> > TIA
> >
> > Don Sharp
> >
> >
> 
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: sources

[Earnie Boyd]

ftp sourceware.cygnus.com
anonymous
email password
cd pub/cygwin/latest
binary
mget *src*bz2
bye

Regards,
Earnie

P.S.:  Use ftp not the browser to ensure that it will download
correctly.

---Don Sharp <Don.Sharp@dddandr.octacon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Before the list gets too picky to answer questions from those of us
who
> can't seem to navigate the cygwin site, would someone kindly tell me
> where I can find the actual cygwin sources of all the bits that
> accompany cygwin1.dll in full.exe.
> 
> As Chris is in denial mode wrt ash I'll need to have a go at fixing
the
> missing character problem in the pattern match. (He is right in saying
> that it isn't something that the Bourne shell can do anyway so
what/who
> decides the correct behaviour is possibly a moot point).
> 
> TIA
> 
> Don Sharp
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: Sources

[Pavel Tsekov]

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Nicholas Marsh wrote:

> Where can I get the installer sources? I want to "tinker" with it, maybe see how hard it would be to create a more user firendly version of the installer.

Here you can find all the information you need to fetch/build the 
installer from source:

http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin-apps/setup.html

You may find it interesting to check the cygwin-apps mailing list 
archives:

http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/

The setup developers exchange ideas and coordinate their work on that 
list.

Don't forget to contribute your changes (if any) back to the comunity :)


--
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/

Sources

[Nicholas Marsh]

Where can I get the installer sources? I want to "tinker" with it, maybe see how hard it would be to create a more user firendly version of the installer.

nick marsh
nmarsh1@mac.com

--
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/

Re: sources

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 09:22:13AM +0000, Don Sharp wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 05:17:39PM +0000, Don Sharp wrote:
>> >As Chris is in denial mode wrt ash I'll need to have a go at fixing the
>> >missing character problem in the pattern match. (He is right in saying
>> >that it isn't something that the Bourne shell can do anyway so what/who
>> >decides the correct behaviour is possibly a moot point).
>> 
>> Denial mode?  You want ash to handle the same substitutions as bash.  It
>> isn't going to happen.
>
>It was perhaps unkind to tweak Chris' tail, but I would expect that if
>ash accepts an expression for evaluation, (one which the Bourne /bin/sh
>won't entertain), and the expression requests the longest possible
>string up to but not including the nominated terminating character, I
>don't expect to be delivered one character short.  If the expression in
>ash has a completely different meaning than it does in bash then Chris
>is right.  However he hasn't stated that the rule for interpreting the
>expression is different in ash and bash.
>
>So either the expression evaluation is incorrect or the syntax of the
>expressions is identical and their semantics are different.  Which is
>it?

The expression evaluation is is incorrect in that it is actually parsed
by ash rather resulting in a "bad substitution" error.  In the next
net release this problem will be rectified.

cgf

Re: sources

[Don Sharp]

> On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 05:17:39PM +0000, Don Sharp wrote:
> >As Chris is in denial mode wrt ash I'll need to have a go at fixing the
> >missing character problem in the pattern match. (He is right in saying
> >that it isn't something that the Bourne shell can do anyway so what/who
> >decides the correct behaviour is possibly a moot point).
> 
> Denial mode?  You want ash to handle the same substitutions as bash.  It
> isn't going to happen.
> 

It was perhaps unkind to tweak Chris' tail, but I would expect that if
ash
accepts an expression for evaluation, (one which the Bourne /bin/sh
won't entertain), and the expression requests the longest possible
string up to but not including the nominated terminating character, I
don't expect to be delivered one character short. If the expression in
ash has a completely different meaning than it does in bash then Chris
is right. However he hasn't stated that the rule for interpreting the
expression is different in ash and bash.

So either the expression evaluation is incorrect or
the syntax of the expressions is identical and their semantics are
different.
Which is it?

> As to who decides the correct behavior, it's not a moot point.  It's me.
> 
> If someone can point me to some documentation that proves that ash is not
> working like a standard UNIX /bin/sh, then I'll be happy to change my mind.
> 
> cgf

Cheers

Don Sharp

Re: sources

[Henry J. Cobb]

There were a few versions of /bin/sh (well, one per vendor at least).

Which /bin/sh will you model your efforts on?

Re: sources

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 05:17:39PM +0000, Don Sharp wrote:
>As Chris is in denial mode wrt ash I'll need to have a go at fixing the
>missing character problem in the pattern match. (He is right in saying
>that it isn't something that the Bourne shell can do anyway so what/who
>decides the correct behaviour is possibly a moot point).

Denial mode?  You want ash to handle the same substitutions as bash.  It
isn't going to happen.

As to who decides the correct behavior, it's not a moot point.  It's me.

If someone can point me to some documentation that proves that ash is not
working like a standard UNIX /bin/sh, then I'll be happy to change my mind.

cgf

sources

[Don Sharp]

Before the list gets too picky to answer questions from those of us who
can't seem to navigate the cygwin site, would someone kindly tell me
where I can find the actual cygwin sources of all the bits that
accompany cygwin1.dll in full.exe.

As Chris is in denial mode wrt ash I'll need to have a go at fixing the
missing character problem in the pattern match. (He is right in saying
that it isn't something that the Bourne shell can do anyway so what/who
decides the correct behaviour is possibly a moot point).

TIA

Don Sharp

Re: sources

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 12:04:26AM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>At 11:14 PM 2/15/99 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>If someone can point me to some documentation that proves that ash is not
>>working like a standard UNIX /bin/sh, then I'll be happy to change my mind.
>
>That's a good point. Where can we find documentation about ash? 
From experimenting with it, it looks like ash can do more than (some)
>sh.  For example the %% construct can be used to test if an argument is
>a switch.  However this feature doesn't work reliably:

This is exactly the opposite of the point I was making.  I don't care AT
ALL about the %% construct unless someone can show me somewhere where
this is documented for a UNIX /bin/sh.  So, demonstrating how it
works with ash currently is fruitless.  We already know that it isn't
working right.

As far as i can tell now, the %% behavior should be expunged from ash
I will try to do that for the next release.

cgf

>~: sh try_ash yyy
>Test 1 yyy
>is not a switch
>Test 2 yyy
>is not a switch
>
>~: sh try_ash -yyy
>Test 1 -yyy
>is a switch
>Test 2 -yyy
>is not a switch
>
>Using sh on a SUN yields:
>1-chablis$ sh try_ash yyy
>try_ash: bad substitution      
>
>Pierre
>
>********************
>#This file checks if arg1 is a switch
>b=${1%%-*}
>echo Test 1 "$1"
>if test -z "$b"
>then 
> echo is a switch
>else 
> echo is not a switch
>fi
>
>#Now it tries a direct test
>echo Test 2 "$1" 
>if test -z "${1%%-*}"
>then 
> echo is a switch
>else 
> echo is not a switch
>fi
>

-- 
cgf@cygnus.com
http://www.cygnus.com/

Re: sources

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 09:04:54AM -0800, Henry J. Cobb wrote:
>There were a few versions of /bin/sh (well, one per vendor at least).
>
>Which /bin/sh will you model your efforts on?

I'm not aware of much disparity between /bin/sh's.  The one exception
that I am aware of is on Ultrix which we hardly need to consider.

cgf

Re: sources

[Pierre A. Humblet]

At 11:14 PM 2/15/99 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>If someone can point me to some documentation that proves that ash is not
>working like a standard UNIX /bin/sh, then I'll be happy to change my mind.

That's a good point. Where can we find documentation about ash? 

Re: sources

[Don Sharp]

"Suhaib M. Siddiqi" wrote:
> 
> I believe it is at ftp://go.cygnus.com
> 

Thank you very much indeed.

Cheers

Don Sharp

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Sharp <Don.Sharp@dddandr.octacon.co.uk>
> To: gnu-win32 <cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 12:17 PM
> Subject: sources
> 
> >Before the list gets too picky to answer questions from those of us who
> >can't seem to navigate the cygwin site, would someone kindly tell me
> >where I can find the actual cygwin sources of all the bits that
> >accompany cygwin1.dll in full.exe.
> >
> >As Chris is in denial mode wrt ash I'll need to have a go at fixing the
> >missing character problem in the pattern match. (He is right in saying
> >that it isn't something that the Bourne shell can do anyway so what/who
> >decides the correct behaviour is possibly a moot point).
> >
> >TIA
> >
> >Don Sharp
> >
> >

Re: sources

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 09:22:13AM +0000, Don Sharp wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 05:17:39PM +0000, Don Sharp wrote:
>> >As Chris is in denial mode wrt ash I'll need to have a go at fixing the
>> >missing character problem in the pattern match. (He is right in saying
>> >that it isn't something that the Bourne shell can do anyway so what/who
>> >decides the correct behaviour is possibly a moot point).
>> 
>> Denial mode?  You want ash to handle the same substitutions as bash.  It
>> isn't going to happen.
>
>It was perhaps unkind to tweak Chris' tail, but I would expect that if
>ash accepts an expression for evaluation, (one which the Bourne /bin/sh
>won't entertain), and the expression requests the longest possible
>string up to but not including the nominated terminating character, I
>don't expect to be delivered one character short.  If the expression in
>ash has a completely different meaning than it does in bash then Chris
>is right.  However he hasn't stated that the rule for interpreting the
>expression is different in ash and bash.
>
>So either the expression evaluation is incorrect or the syntax of the
>expressions is identical and their semantics are different.  Which is
>it?

The expression evaluation is is incorrect in that it is actually parsed
by ash rather resulting in a "bad substitution" error.  In the next
net release this problem will be rectified.

cgf

Re: sources

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 09:04:54AM -0800, Henry J. Cobb wrote:
>There were a few versions of /bin/sh (well, one per vendor at least).
>
>Which /bin/sh will you model your efforts on?

I'm not aware of much disparity between /bin/sh's.  The one exception
that I am aware of is on Ultrix which we hardly need to consider.

cgf

Re: sources

[Henry J. Cobb]

There were a few versions of /bin/sh (well, one per vendor at least).

Which /bin/sh will you model your efforts on?

Re: sources

[Don Sharp]

> On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 05:17:39PM +0000, Don Sharp wrote:
> >As Chris is in denial mode wrt ash I'll need to have a go at fixing the
> >missing character problem in the pattern match. (He is right in saying
> >that it isn't something that the Bourne shell can do anyway so what/who
> >decides the correct behaviour is possibly a moot point).
> 
> Denial mode?  You want ash to handle the same substitutions as bash.  It
> isn't going to happen.
> 

It was perhaps unkind to tweak Chris' tail, but I would expect that if
ash
accepts an expression for evaluation, (one which the Bourne /bin/sh
won't entertain), and the expression requests the longest possible
string up to but not including the nominated terminating character, I
don't expect to be delivered one character short. If the expression in
ash has a completely different meaning than it does in bash then Chris
is right. However he hasn't stated that the rule for interpreting the
expression is different in ash and bash.

So either the expression evaluation is incorrect or
the syntax of the expressions is identical and their semantics are
different.
Which is it?

> As to who decides the correct behavior, it's not a moot point.  It's me.
> 
> If someone can point me to some documentation that proves that ash is not
> working like a standard UNIX /bin/sh, then I'll be happy to change my mind.
> 
> cgf

Cheers

Don Sharp

Re: sources

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 12:04:26AM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>At 11:14 PM 2/15/99 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>If someone can point me to some documentation that proves that ash is not
>>working like a standard UNIX /bin/sh, then I'll be happy to change my mind.
>
>That's a good point. Where can we find documentation about ash? 
From experimenting with it, it looks like ash can do more than (some)
>sh.  For example the %% construct can be used to test if an argument is
>a switch.  However this feature doesn't work reliably:

This is exactly the opposite of the point I was making.  I don't care AT
ALL about the %% construct unless someone can show me somewhere where
this is documented for a UNIX /bin/sh.  So, demonstrating how it
works with ash currently is fruitless.  We already know that it isn't
working right.

As far as i can tell now, the %% behavior should be expunged from ash
I will try to do that for the next release.

cgf

>~: sh try_ash yyy
>Test 1 yyy
>is not a switch
>Test 2 yyy
>is not a switch
>
>~: sh try_ash -yyy
>Test 1 -yyy
>is a switch
>Test 2 -yyy
>is not a switch
>
>Using sh on a SUN yields:
>1-chablis$ sh try_ash yyy
>try_ash: bad substitution      
>
>Pierre
>
>********************
>#This file checks if arg1 is a switch
>b=${1%%-*}
>echo Test 1 "$1"
>if test -z "$b"
>then 
> echo is a switch
>else 
> echo is not a switch
>fi
>
>#Now it tries a direct test
>echo Test 2 "$1" 
>if test -z "${1%%-*}"
>then 
> echo is a switch
>else 
> echo is not a switch
>fi
>

-- 
cgf@cygnus.com
http://www.cygnus.com/

Re: sources

[Pierre A. Humblet]

At 11:14 PM 2/15/99 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>If someone can point me to some documentation that proves that ash is not
>working like a standard UNIX /bin/sh, then I'll be happy to change my mind.

That's a good point. Where can we find documentation about ash? 
From experimenting with it, it looks like ash can do more than (some) sh. For example the %% construct can be used to test if an argument is a switch. However this feature doesn't work reliably:

~: sh try_ash yyy
Test 1 yyy
is not a switch
Test 2 yyy
is not a switch

~: sh try_ash -yyy
Test 1 -yyy
is a switch
Test 2 -yyy
is not a switch

Using sh on a SUN yields:
1-chablis$ sh try_ash yyy
try_ash: bad substitution      

Pierre

********************
#This file checks if arg1 is a switch
b=${1%%-*}
echo Test 1 "$1"
if test -z "$b"
then 
 echo is a switch
else 
 echo is not a switch
fi

#Now it tries a direct test
echo Test 2 "$1" 
if test -z "${1%%-*}"
then 
 echo is a switch
else 
 echo is not a switch
fi

Re: sources

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 05:17:39PM +0000, Don Sharp wrote:
>As Chris is in denial mode wrt ash I'll need to have a go at fixing the
>missing character problem in the pattern match. (He is right in saying
>that it isn't something that the Bourne shell can do anyway so what/who
>decides the correct behaviour is possibly a moot point).

Denial mode?  You want ash to handle the same substitutions as bash.  It
isn't going to happen.

As to who decides the correct behavior, it's not a moot point.  It's me.

If someone can point me to some documentation that proves that ash is not
working like a standard UNIX /bin/sh, then I'll be happy to change my mind.

cgf

Re: sources

[Don Sharp]

"Suhaib M. Siddiqi" wrote:
> 
> I believe it is at ftp://go.cygnus.com
> 

Thank you very much indeed.

Cheers

Don Sharp

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Sharp <Don.Sharp@dddandr.octacon.co.uk>
> To: gnu-win32 <cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 12:17 PM
> Subject: sources
> 
> >Before the list gets too picky to answer questions from those of us who
> >can't seem to navigate the cygwin site, would someone kindly tell me
> >where I can find the actual cygwin sources of all the bits that
> >accompany cygwin1.dll in full.exe.
> >
> >As Chris is in denial mode wrt ash I'll need to have a go at fixing the
> >missing character problem in the pattern match. (He is right in saying
> >that it isn't something that the Bourne shell can do anyway so what/who
> >decides the correct behaviour is possibly a moot point).
> >
> >TIA
> >
> >Don Sharp
> >
> >

sources

[Don Sharp]

Before the list gets too picky to answer questions from those of us who
can't seem to navigate the cygwin site, would someone kindly tell me
where I can find the actual cygwin sources of all the bits that
accompany cygwin1.dll in full.exe.

As Chris is in denial mode wrt ash I'll need to have a go at fixing the
missing character problem in the pattern match. (He is right in saying
that it isn't something that the Bourne shell can do anyway so what/who
decides the correct behaviour is possibly a moot point).

TIA

Don Sharp