From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5189 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2012 11:10:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 5179 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Aug 2012 11:10:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (HELO mailout-de.gmx.net) (213.165.64.22) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:09:53 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2012 11:09:51 -0000 Received: from ppp-188-174-36-226.dynamic.mnet-online.de (EHLO [10.0.2.15]) [188.174.36.226] by mail.gmx.net (mp016) with SMTP; 13 Aug 2012 13:09:51 +0200 Message-ID: <5028E07D.1010501@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:51:00 -0000 From: Herbert Stocker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Side-by-side configuration is incorrect reported as permission denied References: <5025C431.7050201@cygwin.com> <20120812170641.GC32748@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20120812205407.GA7337@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <5028B9D5.6050007@gmx.de> <20120813084755.GA24539@calimero.vinschen.de> In-Reply-To: <20120813084755.GA24539@calimero.vinschen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2012-08/txt/msg00271.txt.bz2 On 13.08.2012 10:47, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Aug 13 10:24, Herbert Stocker wrote: >> There is no need for the 'no', i'd suggest ELIBBAD. > Not bad, either. So we have ELIBACC, ELIBBADD, and ENOPKG as > suggestions. I'd vote against ENOPKG. That means: /* Package not installed */ A side-by-side error does not primarily mean that something is not installed. >> (And to bring back to memory, i'd also suggest to add EFAIL be added) > Here's a clear "no". EFAIL is not a useful error message. It's not > even slightly wrong, like EACCES in this case might be, it's entirely > lacking information. My suggestion was not to propose EFAIL as an error message for a side-by-side error. Not at all. i should have made an extra toipic, actually, and if i would consider it important enough, i would make one now. What i meant was that sometimes i'm writing a program, and when searching for an appropriate error code in errno.h, i don't find one. Then i would prefer to resort to some genereric EFAIL. Imagine a routine decodes an mp3 stream and fails because the mp3 data is corrupt. What error code would match this? The best i found was: #define EBADMSG 77. /* Trying to read unreadable message */ But i guess the solution would be to stay away from these more OS-centric error codes. Again, i do not have a strong desire on discussing EFAIL, so we can stop here. Herbert -- 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