git stash damaged?

git stash damaged?

[Olivier FAURAX]

Hello,

When I use "git stash", I get a message saying it is there but not 
executable.

$ git stash
fatal: 'stash' appears to be a git command, but we were not
able to execute it. Maybe git-stash is broken?

I tested with 2.8.3-1 and 2.8.2-1.
I checked /usr/libexec/git-core/git-stash and it is a script that has 
proper permissions.

Can you reproduce? (package: git)

Have a nice day
Olivier

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: git stash damaged?

[Brian Inglis]

On 2017-01-19 07:47, Olivier FAURAX wrote:
> When I use "git stash", I get a message saying it is there but not
> executable.
> $ git stash
> fatal: 'stash' appears to be a git command, but we were not
> able to execute it. Maybe git-stash is broken?
> I tested with 2.8.3-1 and 2.8.2-1.
> I checked /usr/libexec/git-core/git-stash and it is a script that has
> proper permissions.
> Can you reproduce? (package: git)

$ file /usr/libexec/git-core/git-stash

and check if it mentions, DOS, BOM, or CRLF line terminators - fix with: 

$ dos2unix -k /usr/libexec/git-core/git-stash

then recheck permissions still executable.

If that's not it, post output of: 

$ ls -Adl .git
$ uname -srvmo
$ git --version
$ file    /usr/libexec/git-core/git-stash
$ ls -l   /usr/libexec/git-core/git-stash
$ getfacl /usr/libexec/git-core/git-stash
$ icacls  `cygpath -w /usr/libexec/git-core/git-stash`

to see if anything looks off.

-- 
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: Re: git stash damaged?

[Olivier FAURAX]

Thanks for the help!

Le 19/01/2017 à 18:24, Brian Inglis a écrit :
> If that's not it, post output of:
>
> $ ls -Adl .git
drwxr-xr-x+ 1 USER06 Aucun 0 19 janv. 16:38 .git/

> $ uname -srvmo
CYGWIN_NT-10.0 2.6.1(0.305/5/3) 2016-12-16 11:55 x86_64 Cygwin

> $ git --version
git version 2.8.3

> $ file    /usr/libexec/git-core/git-stash
/usr/libexec/git-core/git-stash: POSIX shell script, ASCII text executable

> $ ls -l   /usr/libexec/git-core/git-stash
-rwxr-xr-x 1 USER06 Aucun 14K 24 mai    2016 
/usr/libexec/git-core/git-stash*

> $ getfacl /usr/libexec/git-core/git-stash
# file: /usr/libexec/git-core/git-stash
# owner: USER06
# group: Aucun
user::rwx
group::r-x
other:r-x

> $ icacls  `cygpath -w /usr/libexec/git-core/git-stash`
C:\cygwin64\usr\libexec\git-core\git-stash DESKTOP-H62\USER06:(F)
                                            DESKTOP-H62\Aucun:(RX)
                                            Tout le monde:(RX)

1 fichiers correctement traites ; echec du traitement de 0 fichiers

Is there something else I can provide?

Thanks in advance
Olivier

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: git stash damaged?

[Brian Inglis]

On 2017-01-20 06:00, Olivier FAURAX wrote:
> Thanks for the help!
> Le 19/01/2017 à 18:24, Brian Inglis a écrit :
>> If that's not it, post output of:
>> $ ls -Adl .git
> drwxr-xr-x+ 1 USER06 Aucun 0 19 janv. 16:38 .git/
>> $ uname -srvmo
> CYGWIN_NT-10.0 2.6.1(0.305/5/3) 2016-12-16 11:55 x86_64 Cygwin
>> $ git --version
> git version 2.8.3
>> $ file    /usr/libexec/git-core/git-stash
> /usr/libexec/git-core/git-stash: POSIX shell script, ASCII text executable
>> $ ls -l   /usr/libexec/git-core/git-stash
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 USER06 Aucun 14K 24 mai    2016 /usr/libexec/git-core/git-stash*
>> $ getfacl /usr/libexec/git-core/git-stash
> # file: /usr/libexec/git-core/git-stash
> # owner: USER06
> # group: Aucun
> user::rwx
> group::r-x
> other:r-x
>> $ icacls  `cygpath -w /usr/libexec/git-core/git-stash`
> C:\cygwin64\usr\libexec\git-core\git-stash DESKTOP-H62\USER06:(F)
>                                            DESKTOP-H62\Aucun:(RX)
>                                            Tout le monde:(RX)
> 1 fichiers correctement traites ; echec du traitement de 0 fichiers
> Is there something else I can provide?

Looks similar to mine except my group owner is Administrators.
Only thing I can suggest is run admin/elevated bash then
	chgrp Administrators /usr/libexec/git-core/*
using local language for Administrators and retest if that makes 
any difference?

-- 
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

/bin/sh is not really bash? [was: git stash damaged?]

[Olivier FAURAX]

Le 20/01/2017 à 16:20, Brian Inglis a écrit :
> Looks similar to mine except my group owner is Administrators.
> Only thing I can suggest is run admin/elevated bash then
> 	chgrp Administrators /usr/libexec/git-core/*
> using local language for Administrators and retest if that makes
> any difference?

I found a workaround by replacing:
#!/bin/sh
by:
#!/bin/bash
in the first line of /usr/libexec/git-core/git-submodule

This might be related to:
https://cygwin.com/faq/faq.html#faq.using.shell-scripts

However, I didn't change any permission when "bash" worked instead of "sh".

Also, the previous link says that "/bin/sh is really bash", but:
$ /bin/sh --version

$ /bin/bash --version
GNU bash, version 4.3.48(8)-release (x86_64-unknown-cygwin)

Is this expected?

Thanks for the help,
Olivier

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: /bin/sh is not really bash? [was: git stash damaged?]

[cyg Simple]

On 1/26/2017 5:52 AM, Olivier FAURAX wrote:
> Le 20/01/2017 à 16:20, Brian Inglis a écrit :
>> Looks similar to mine except my group owner is Administrators.
>> Only thing I can suggest is run admin/elevated bash then
>>     chgrp Administrators /usr/libexec/git-core/*
>> using local language for Administrators and retest if that makes
>> any difference?
> 
> I found a workaround by replacing:
> #!/bin/sh
> by:
> #!/bin/bash
> in the first line of /usr/libexec/git-core/git-submodule
> 
> This might be related to:
> https://cygwin.com/faq/faq.html#faq.using.shell-scripts
> 
> However, I didn't change any permission when "bash" worked instead of "sh".
> 
> Also, the previous link says that "/bin/sh is really bash", but:
> $ /bin/sh --version
> 
> $ /bin/bash --version
> GNU bash, version 4.3.48(8)-release (x86_64-unknown-cygwin)
> 
> Is this expected?
> 

No.

$ sh --version
GNU bash, version 4.3.48(8)-release (x86_64-unknown-cygwin)

You might want to check what your /bin/sh actually is or perhaps just
remove it and set the symlink yourself.

-- 
cyg Simple

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: /bin/sh is not really bash? [was: git stash damaged?]

[Marco Atzeri]

On 26/01/2017 15:20, cyg Simple wrote:
> On 1/26/2017 5:52 AM, Olivier FAURAX wrote:
>> Le 20/01/2017 à 16:20, Brian Inglis a écrit :

>>
>> Also, the previous link says that "/bin/sh is really bash", but:
>> $ /bin/sh --version
>>
>> $ /bin/bash --version
>> GNU bash, version 4.3.48(8)-release (x86_64-unknown-cygwin)
>>
>> Is this expected?
>>
>
> No.
>
> $ sh --version
> GNU bash, version 4.3.48(8)-release (x86_64-unknown-cygwin)
>
> You might want to check what your /bin/sh actually is or perhaps just
> remove it and set the symlink yourself.
>

e.g.

$ type sh
sh is hashed (/usr/bin/sh)

$ sh --version
GNU bash, version 4.4.11(2)-release (x86_64-unknown-cygwin)


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: /bin/sh is not really bash? [was: git stash damaged?]

[Hans-Bernhard Bröker]

Am 26.01.2017 um 11:52 schrieb Olivier FAURAX:

> I found a workaround by replacing:
> #!/bin/sh
> by:
> #!/bin/bash
> in the first line of /usr/libexec/git-core/git-submodule

If that change has any effect, that leaves three main possibilities:

1) something broke or otherwise disabled your installed /bin/sh.exe, but 
left /bin/bash.exe intact.  Someone else here had some unrelated 
activity kill cygwin's bash.exe recently...

2) the git-stash script wrongly assumes bash behaves exactly the same 
when called as 'sh' and as 'bash'.  But bash enters POSIX compatibility 
mode in that case, which disables quite a number of GNU extensions.

>  This might be related to:
> https://cygwin.com/faq/faq.html#faq.using.shell-scripts

That would be case 2)  I don't think so, though.  The symptoms of that 
would be less blunt than "could not execute".

> Also, the previous link says that "/bin/sh is really bash", but:
> $ /bin/sh --version

That strongly hints you have case 1) happening here.


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple