Re: yikes, what are these?

Re: yikes, what are these?

[Phil Edwards]

> To have the same directory structure as clean B20.1 installation I run
> configure scripts using i586-cygwin32 as host parameter.

Thanks to Vadim and N8TM for reminding me.  My little scripts to help me
with these things got pseudotoasted when I uninstalled/reinstalled the
whole shebang yesterday.


*sigh*  Ever have one of those weeks where all the mistakes you make are
stupid, simple, embarassing ones?  I should have been a fast-food clerk.

Phil


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: yikes, what are these?

[Phil Edwards]

> To have the same directory structure as clean B20.1 installation I run
> configure scripts using i586-cygwin32 as host parameter.

Thanks to Vadim and N8TM for reminding me.  My little scripts to help me
with these things got pseudotoasted when I uninstalled/reinstalled the
whole shebang yesterday.


*sigh*  Ever have one of those weeks where all the mistakes you make are
stupid, simple, embarassing ones?  I should have been a fast-food clerk.

Phil


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: yikes, what are these?

[Earnie Boyd]

--- cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com wrote:
> If you don't like the default structure that our cygwin releases impose on
> you, there is no reason to use it.  Personally, I move everything around
> to a more "UNIX-like" structure.  So, I have a /bin, /usr/bin,
> /usr/local/bin,
> /usr/local/lib, etc.
> 
> What I'm trying to say, is that, with the possible exception of bison
> (which will be fixed in the next release) nothing should be relying
> on builtin path names using the funky H-*/i-* subdirectory structure.
> Feel free to move things into more UNIX-friendly locations.
> 
> In fact, that's what we'll be doing in the next release.

Yea!! Cheers!! ;^)

This is real good news.

Earnie.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: yikes, what are these?

[cygwin]

On Thu, Jun 17, 1999 at 11:35:44AM -0700, Rick Rankin wrote:
>--- cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com wrote:
>> In fact, that's what we'll be doing in the next release.
>
>Ok, I'll be the boob to ask the question, although I'll ask it a little
>differently. Instead of asking "When's the next release scheduled?" (which is,
>of course, what I *really* want to know ;-), let me ask what's left to do
>before the next release is made?

I guarantee that the next release will be out before January 17, 2003.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: yikes, what are these?

[Rick Rankin]

--- cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 1999 at 09:53:01AM +0400, Vadim Egorov wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >Yes, I had to build one of the recent egcs snapshots from sources but it
> >was quite painless. I used Jan 15 cygwin snapshot -- it might have made 
> >the trick -- and Mumit Khan's egcs-1.1.2 on the top of WinNT 4.0 sp5.  
> >
> >To have the same directory structure as clean B20.1 installation I run
> >configure scripts using i586-cygwin32 as host parameter.
> 
> I thought I should point out something, since I have seen an apparent
> misconception here a few times.
> 
> If you don't like the default structure that our cygwin releases impose on
> you, there is no reason to use it.  Personally, I move everything around
> to a more "UNIX-like" structure.  So, I have a /bin, /usr/bin,
> /usr/local/bin,
> /usr/local/lib, etc.
> 
> What I'm trying to say, is that, with the possible exception of bison
> (which will be fixed in the next release) nothing should be relying
> on builtin path names using the funky H-*/i-* subdirectory structure.
> Feel free to move things into more UNIX-friendly locations.
> 
> In fact, that's what we'll be doing in the next release.

Ok, I'll be the boob to ask the question, although I'll ask it a little
differently. Instead of asking "When's the next release scheduled?" (which is,
of course, what I *really* want to know ;-), let me ask what's left to do
before the next release is made?

Rick
--
Rick Rankin
rick_rankin@yahoo.com

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: yikes, what are these?

[Phil Edwards]

> Hum, I think you just broadcasted to the world that you think fast-food  
> clerks are stupid, simple, and embarrassed;

Not really.  Most happen to be, but that's only because they're still
in junior high school, and that's not their fault.

As a counterexample, I just now went and asked a Taco Bell drive-thru
operator to help me with my original problem, that of building a recent
EGCS under cygwin.  He snapped his gum a couple times, typed some stuff,
and it's building fine in another window.  A recent libstdc++-v3 from
CVS sources is next on my list (the guys at Arby's volunteered to help
me with that one).

(I'll mention at this point that I'm really, really glad to hear that
the H-* thing is going away.  I still can't manage to get around that.)


> or people that are stupid, simple  
> and embarrassed should be relegated (banished) to fast-food clerk status.

Probably.  They do less damage there.  /I/ would do less damage there.

I'm more disturbed that I can't make a offhand self-deprecating wry comment
without offending /somebody/ out there.  Ah, the joy of Internet.  :-)

I actually thought about quoting Einstein's famous, "If I had known, I
would have been a watchmaker," and got as far as typing the first three
words, but then figured that somebody would think that I was trying to
compare myself to Einstein.


Phil
(although I think I have more manageable hair than Albert did)


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: yikes, what are these?

[Vadim Egorov]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2409 bytes --]

Hello,

Yes, I had to build one of the recent egcs snapshots from sources but it
was quite painless. I used Jan 15 cygwin snapshot -- it might have made 
the trick -- and Mumit Khan's egcs-1.1.2 on the top of WinNT 4.0 sp5.  

To have the same directory structure as clean B20.1 installation I run
configure scripts using i586-cygwin32 as host parameter.

BTW, you can take gcc-2.95 dev snapshot binaries from Mumit Khan's site.

Regards,
Vadim


Phil Edwards wrote:
> 
> Well, I was heartened by the news that people had gotten some of the not-
> overly-recent EGCS snapshots to build under Cygwin.  So, after reinstalling
> B20.1 and setting up some mounts, I tried to configure:
> 
> [6]> ../srcdir/egcs-19990502/configure --prefix=/home/EGCS
> Configuring for a i586-pc-cygwin32 host.
>     0       0 [main] D:\cygnus\cygwin-b20\H-i586-cygwin32\bin\sh.exe 1088 fhandler_base::fork_fixup: ../srcdir/egcs-19990502/move-if-change - Win32 error 6, handle 0xEC
> fork: ResumeThread failed, rc = 0, Win32 error 6../srcdir/egcs-19990502/configure: Cannot fork
>     0       0 [proc] D:\cygnus\cygwin-b20\H-i586-cygwin32\bin\sh.exe 1117 wait_subproc: wait failed.  nchildren 1, wait -1, Win32 error 6
>     0    2007 [proc] sh 1117 wait_subproc: event[1] 0x20, Win32 error 6
> [a ^C finally took effect here]
> [7]>
> 
> I hope these numbers mean something more to somebody out there than they
> do to me...
> 
> My next thought was to look at the developer's snapshots, in case there
> were any obvious nots in a ChangeLog.  I grabbed a recent cygwin-inst,
> but the major subdirectory ("usr" in Earnie's scheme) was named
> i586-pc-cygwin32 instead of i586-cygwin32.  All of the binaries would
> still have been looking in the wrong directory, so I'm not certain what
> I should have done there.
> 
> Am I jumping the gun on the next release?  Should I wait for B21 or keep
> pushing on this one?
> 
> (If you reply to the list, please don't cc another copy to me.  Thanks!)
> Phil
> 
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

-- 
*********************************************
Vadim Egorov, 1C      *       ÷ÁÄÉÍ åÇÏÒÏ×,1C
egorovv@1c.ru         *         egorovv@1c.ru
*********************************************


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: yikes, what are these?

[Vadim Egorov]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1841 bytes --]

cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jun 17, 1999 at 09:53:01AM +0400, Vadim Egorov wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >Yes, I had to build one of the recent egcs snapshots from sources but it
> >was quite painless. I used Jan 15 cygwin snapshot -- it might have made
> >the trick -- and Mumit Khan's egcs-1.1.2 on the top of WinNT 4.0 sp5.
> >
> >To have the same directory structure as clean B20.1 installation I run
> >configure scripts using i586-cygwin32 as host parameter.
> 
> I thought I should point out something, since I have seen an apparent
> misconception here a few times.
> 
> If you don't like the default structure that our cygwin releases impose on
> you, there is no reason to use it.  Personally, I move everything around
> to a more "UNIX-like" structure.  So, I have a /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin,
> /usr/local/lib, etc.
> 
> What I'm trying to say, is that, with the possible exception of bison
> (which will be fixed in the next release) nothing should be relying
> on builtin path names using the funky H-*/i-* subdirectory structure.
> Feel free to move things into more UNIX-friendly locations.
> 
> In fact, that's what we'll be doing in the next release.
> 
First thing i did after installation of B20 was mounting UNIX-like file 
system - that's not a question. What I meant is /usr/i586-cygwin32
created
by both cygwin and egcs 'make install'. As soon as you forget to type 
'configure i586-cygwin32' they become i686-pc-cygwin32. Personally I
don't
like to see them both under /usr.

-- 
*********************************************
Vadim Egorov, 1C      *       ÷ÁÄÉÍ åÇÏÒÏ×,1C
egorovv@1c.ru         *         egorovv@1c.ru
*********************************************


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: yikes, what are these?

[cygwin]

On Thu, Jun 17, 1999 at 09:53:01AM +0400, Vadim Egorov wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Yes, I had to build one of the recent egcs snapshots from sources but it
>was quite painless. I used Jan 15 cygwin snapshot -- it might have made 
>the trick -- and Mumit Khan's egcs-1.1.2 on the top of WinNT 4.0 sp5.  
>
>To have the same directory structure as clean B20.1 installation I run
>configure scripts using i586-cygwin32 as host parameter.

I thought I should point out something, since I have seen an apparent
misconception here a few times.

If you don't like the default structure that our cygwin releases impose on
you, there is no reason to use it.  Personally, I move everything around
to a more "UNIX-like" structure.  So, I have a /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin,
/usr/local/lib, etc.

What I'm trying to say, is that, with the possible exception of bison
(which will be fixed in the next release) nothing should be relying
on builtin path names using the funky H-*/i-* subdirectory structure.
Feel free to move things into more UNIX-friendly locations.

In fact, that's what we'll be doing in the next release.

-chris

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

yikes, what are these?

[Phil Edwards]

Well, I was heartened by the news that people had gotten some of the not-
overly-recent EGCS snapshots to build under Cygwin.  So, after reinstalling
B20.1 and setting up some mounts, I tried to configure:

[6]> ../srcdir/egcs-19990502/configure --prefix=/home/EGCS
Configuring for a i586-pc-cygwin32 host.
    0       0 [main] D:\cygnus\cygwin-b20\H-i586-cygwin32\bin\sh.exe 1088 fhandler_base::fork_fixup: ../srcdir/egcs-19990502/move-if-change - Win32 error 6, handle 0xEC
fork: ResumeThread failed, rc = 0, Win32 error 6../srcdir/egcs-19990502/configure: Cannot fork
    0       0 [proc] D:\cygnus\cygwin-b20\H-i586-cygwin32\bin\sh.exe 1117 wait_subproc: wait failed.  nchildren 1, wait -1, Win32 error 6
    0    2007 [proc] sh 1117 wait_subproc: event[1] 0x20, Win32 error 6
[a ^C finally took effect here]
[7]> 


I hope these numbers mean something more to somebody out there than they
do to me...

My next thought was to look at the developer's snapshots, in case there
were any obvious nots in a ChangeLog.  I grabbed a recent cygwin-inst,
but the major subdirectory ("usr" in Earnie's scheme) was named
i586-pc-cygwin32 instead of i586-cygwin32.  All of the binaries would
still have been looking in the wrong directory, so I'm not certain what
I should have done there.

Am I jumping the gun on the next release?  Should I wait for B21 or keep
pushing on this one?


(If you reply to the list, please don't cc another copy to me.  Thanks!)
Phil


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: yikes, what are these?

[Vadim Egorov]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1841 bytes --]

cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jun 17, 1999 at 09:53:01AM +0400, Vadim Egorov wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >Yes, I had to build one of the recent egcs snapshots from sources but it
> >was quite painless. I used Jan 15 cygwin snapshot -- it might have made
> >the trick -- and Mumit Khan's egcs-1.1.2 on the top of WinNT 4.0 sp5.
> >
> >To have the same directory structure as clean B20.1 installation I run
> >configure scripts using i586-cygwin32 as host parameter.
> 
> I thought I should point out something, since I have seen an apparent
> misconception here a few times.
> 
> If you don't like the default structure that our cygwin releases impose on
> you, there is no reason to use it.  Personally, I move everything around
> to a more "UNIX-like" structure.  So, I have a /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin,
> /usr/local/lib, etc.
> 
> What I'm trying to say, is that, with the possible exception of bison
> (which will be fixed in the next release) nothing should be relying
> on builtin path names using the funky H-*/i-* subdirectory structure.
> Feel free to move things into more UNIX-friendly locations.
> 
> In fact, that's what we'll be doing in the next release.
> 
First thing i did after installation of B20 was mounting UNIX-like file 
system - that's not a question. What I meant is /usr/i586-cygwin32
created
by both cygwin and egcs 'make install'. As soon as you forget to type 
'configure i586-cygwin32' they become i686-pc-cygwin32. Personally I
don't
like to see them both under /usr.

-- 
*********************************************
Vadim Egorov, 1C      *       ÷ÁÄÉÍ åÇÏÒÏ×,1C
egorovv@1c.ru         *         egorovv@1c.ru
*********************************************


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: yikes, what are these?

[cygwin]

On Thu, Jun 17, 1999 at 11:35:44AM -0700, Rick Rankin wrote:
>--- cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com wrote:
>> In fact, that's what we'll be doing in the next release.
>
>Ok, I'll be the boob to ask the question, although I'll ask it a little
>differently. Instead of asking "When's the next release scheduled?" (which is,
>of course, what I *really* want to know ;-), let me ask what's left to do
>before the next release is made?

I guarantee that the next release will be out before January 17, 2003.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: yikes, what are these?

[Rick Rankin]

--- cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 1999 at 09:53:01AM +0400, Vadim Egorov wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >Yes, I had to build one of the recent egcs snapshots from sources but it
> >was quite painless. I used Jan 15 cygwin snapshot -- it might have made 
> >the trick -- and Mumit Khan's egcs-1.1.2 on the top of WinNT 4.0 sp5.  
> >
> >To have the same directory structure as clean B20.1 installation I run
> >configure scripts using i586-cygwin32 as host parameter.
> 
> I thought I should point out something, since I have seen an apparent
> misconception here a few times.
> 
> If you don't like the default structure that our cygwin releases impose on
> you, there is no reason to use it.  Personally, I move everything around
> to a more "UNIX-like" structure.  So, I have a /bin, /usr/bin,
> /usr/local/bin,
> /usr/local/lib, etc.
> 
> What I'm trying to say, is that, with the possible exception of bison
> (which will be fixed in the next release) nothing should be relying
> on builtin path names using the funky H-*/i-* subdirectory structure.
> Feel free to move things into more UNIX-friendly locations.
> 
> In fact, that's what we'll be doing in the next release.

Ok, I'll be the boob to ask the question, although I'll ask it a little
differently. Instead of asking "When's the next release scheduled?" (which is,
of course, what I *really* want to know ;-), let me ask what's left to do
before the next release is made?

Rick
--
Rick Rankin
rick_rankin@yahoo.com

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: yikes, what are these?

[Phil Edwards]

> Hum, I think you just broadcasted to the world that you think fast-food  
> clerks are stupid, simple, and embarrassed;

Not really.  Most happen to be, but that's only because they're still
in junior high school, and that's not their fault.

As a counterexample, I just now went and asked a Taco Bell drive-thru
operator to help me with my original problem, that of building a recent
EGCS under cygwin.  He snapped his gum a couple times, typed some stuff,
and it's building fine in another window.  A recent libstdc++-v3 from
CVS sources is next on my list (the guys at Arby's volunteered to help
me with that one).

(I'll mention at this point that I'm really, really glad to hear that
the H-* thing is going away.  I still can't manage to get around that.)


> or people that are stupid, simple  
> and embarrassed should be relegated (banished) to fast-food clerk status.

Probably.  They do less damage there.  /I/ would do less damage there.

I'm more disturbed that I can't make a offhand self-deprecating wry comment
without offending /somebody/ out there.  Ah, the joy of Internet.  :-)

I actually thought about quoting Einstein's famous, "If I had known, I
would have been a watchmaker," and got as far as typing the first three
words, but then figured that somebody would think that I was trying to
compare myself to Einstein.


Phil
(although I think I have more manageable hair than Albert did)


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: yikes, what are these?

[Earnie Boyd]

--- cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com wrote:
> If you don't like the default structure that our cygwin releases impose on
> you, there is no reason to use it.  Personally, I move everything around
> to a more "UNIX-like" structure.  So, I have a /bin, /usr/bin,
> /usr/local/bin,
> /usr/local/lib, etc.
> 
> What I'm trying to say, is that, with the possible exception of bison
> (which will be fixed in the next release) nothing should be relying
> on builtin path names using the funky H-*/i-* subdirectory structure.
> Feel free to move things into more UNIX-friendly locations.
> 
> In fact, that's what we'll be doing in the next release.

Yea!! Cheers!! ;^)

This is real good news.

Earnie.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: yikes, what are these?

[cygwin]

On Thu, Jun 17, 1999 at 09:53:01AM +0400, Vadim Egorov wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Yes, I had to build one of the recent egcs snapshots from sources but it
>was quite painless. I used Jan 15 cygwin snapshot -- it might have made 
>the trick -- and Mumit Khan's egcs-1.1.2 on the top of WinNT 4.0 sp5.  
>
>To have the same directory structure as clean B20.1 installation I run
>configure scripts using i586-cygwin32 as host parameter.

I thought I should point out something, since I have seen an apparent
misconception here a few times.

If you don't like the default structure that our cygwin releases impose on
you, there is no reason to use it.  Personally, I move everything around
to a more "UNIX-like" structure.  So, I have a /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin,
/usr/local/lib, etc.

What I'm trying to say, is that, with the possible exception of bison
(which will be fixed in the next release) nothing should be relying
on builtin path names using the funky H-*/i-* subdirectory structure.
Feel free to move things into more UNIX-friendly locations.

In fact, that's what we'll be doing in the next release.

-chris

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: yikes, what are these?

[Vadim Egorov]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2409 bytes --]

Hello,

Yes, I had to build one of the recent egcs snapshots from sources but it
was quite painless. I used Jan 15 cygwin snapshot -- it might have made 
the trick -- and Mumit Khan's egcs-1.1.2 on the top of WinNT 4.0 sp5.  

To have the same directory structure as clean B20.1 installation I run
configure scripts using i586-cygwin32 as host parameter.

BTW, you can take gcc-2.95 dev snapshot binaries from Mumit Khan's site.

Regards,
Vadim


Phil Edwards wrote:
> 
> Well, I was heartened by the news that people had gotten some of the not-
> overly-recent EGCS snapshots to build under Cygwin.  So, after reinstalling
> B20.1 and setting up some mounts, I tried to configure:
> 
> [6]> ../srcdir/egcs-19990502/configure --prefix=/home/EGCS
> Configuring for a i586-pc-cygwin32 host.
>     0       0 [main] D:\cygnus\cygwin-b20\H-i586-cygwin32\bin\sh.exe 1088 fhandler_base::fork_fixup: ../srcdir/egcs-19990502/move-if-change - Win32 error 6, handle 0xEC
> fork: ResumeThread failed, rc = 0, Win32 error 6../srcdir/egcs-19990502/configure: Cannot fork
>     0       0 [proc] D:\cygnus\cygwin-b20\H-i586-cygwin32\bin\sh.exe 1117 wait_subproc: wait failed.  nchildren 1, wait -1, Win32 error 6
>     0    2007 [proc] sh 1117 wait_subproc: event[1] 0x20, Win32 error 6
> [a ^C finally took effect here]
> [7]>
> 
> I hope these numbers mean something more to somebody out there than they
> do to me...
> 
> My next thought was to look at the developer's snapshots, in case there
> were any obvious nots in a ChangeLog.  I grabbed a recent cygwin-inst,
> but the major subdirectory ("usr" in Earnie's scheme) was named
> i586-pc-cygwin32 instead of i586-cygwin32.  All of the binaries would
> still have been looking in the wrong directory, so I'm not certain what
> I should have done there.
> 
> Am I jumping the gun on the next release?  Should I wait for B21 or keep
> pushing on this one?
> 
> (If you reply to the list, please don't cc another copy to me.  Thanks!)
> Phil
> 
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

-- 
*********************************************
Vadim Egorov, 1C      *       ÷ÁÄÉÍ åÇÏÒÏ×,1C
egorovv@1c.ru         *         egorovv@1c.ru
*********************************************


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

yikes, what are these?

[Phil Edwards]

Well, I was heartened by the news that people had gotten some of the not-
overly-recent EGCS snapshots to build under Cygwin.  So, after reinstalling
B20.1 and setting up some mounts, I tried to configure:

[6]> ../srcdir/egcs-19990502/configure --prefix=/home/EGCS
Configuring for a i586-pc-cygwin32 host.
    0       0 [main] D:\cygnus\cygwin-b20\H-i586-cygwin32\bin\sh.exe 1088 fhandler_base::fork_fixup: ../srcdir/egcs-19990502/move-if-change - Win32 error 6, handle 0xEC
fork: ResumeThread failed, rc = 0, Win32 error 6../srcdir/egcs-19990502/configure: Cannot fork
    0       0 [proc] D:\cygnus\cygwin-b20\H-i586-cygwin32\bin\sh.exe 1117 wait_subproc: wait failed.  nchildren 1, wait -1, Win32 error 6
    0    2007 [proc] sh 1117 wait_subproc: event[1] 0x20, Win32 error 6
[a ^C finally took effect here]
[7]> 


I hope these numbers mean something more to somebody out there than they
do to me...

My next thought was to look at the developer's snapshots, in case there
were any obvious nots in a ChangeLog.  I grabbed a recent cygwin-inst,
but the major subdirectory ("usr" in Earnie's scheme) was named
i586-pc-cygwin32 instead of i586-cygwin32.  All of the binaries would
still have been looking in the wrong directory, so I'm not certain what
I should have done there.

Am I jumping the gun on the next release?  Should I wait for B21 or keep
pushing on this one?


(If you reply to the list, please don't cc another copy to me.  Thanks!)
Phil


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com