* git stash damaged?
@ 2017-01-19 14:48 Olivier FAURAX
2017-01-19 17:24 ` Brian Inglis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Olivier FAURAX @ 2017-01-19 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: git stash damaged?
2017-01-19 14:48 git stash damaged? Olivier FAURAX
@ 2017-01-19 17:24 ` Brian Inglis
2017-01-20 13:00 ` Olivier FAURAX
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Brian Inglis @ 2017-01-19 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: git stash damaged?
2017-01-19 17:24 ` Brian Inglis
@ 2017-01-20 13:00 ` Olivier FAURAX
2017-01-20 15:20 ` Brian Inglis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Olivier FAURAX @ 2017-01-20 13:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: git stash damaged?
2017-01-20 13:00 ` Olivier FAURAX
@ 2017-01-20 15:20 ` Brian Inglis
2017-01-26 10:52 ` /bin/sh is not really bash? [was: git stash damaged?] Olivier FAURAX
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Brian Inglis @ 2017-01-20 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* /bin/sh is not really bash? [was: git stash damaged?]
2017-01-20 15:20 ` Brian Inglis
@ 2017-01-26 10:52 ` Olivier FAURAX
2017-01-26 14:21 ` cyg Simple
2017-01-26 19:15 ` Hans-Bernhard Bröker
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Olivier FAURAX @ 2017-01-26 10:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: /bin/sh is not really bash? [was: git stash damaged?]
2017-01-26 10:52 ` /bin/sh is not really bash? [was: git stash damaged?] Olivier FAURAX
@ 2017-01-26 14:21 ` cyg Simple
2017-01-26 15:13 ` Marco Atzeri
2017-01-26 19:15 ` Hans-Bernhard Bröker
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: cyg Simple @ 2017-01-26 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: /bin/sh is not really bash? [was: git stash damaged?]
2017-01-26 14:21 ` cyg Simple
@ 2017-01-26 15:13 ` Marco Atzeri
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Marco Atzeri @ 2017-01-26 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: /bin/sh is not really bash? [was: git stash damaged?]
2017-01-26 10:52 ` /bin/sh is not really bash? [was: git stash damaged?] Olivier FAURAX
2017-01-26 14:21 ` cyg Simple
@ 2017-01-26 19:15 ` Hans-Bernhard Bröker
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Hans-Bernhard Bröker @ 2017-01-26 19:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-01-26 19:15 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-01-19 14:48 git stash damaged? Olivier FAURAX
2017-01-19 17:24 ` Brian Inglis
2017-01-20 13:00 ` Olivier FAURAX
2017-01-20 15:20 ` Brian Inglis
2017-01-26 10:52 ` /bin/sh is not really bash? [was: git stash damaged?] Olivier FAURAX
2017-01-26 14:21 ` cyg Simple
2017-01-26 15:13 ` Marco Atzeri
2017-01-26 19:15 ` Hans-Bernhard Bröker
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).