Re: bash/fork problem on Win server 2003 with terminal serve

["Lionel B" <lionelbuk at yahoo dot co dot uk>]

"Christopher Faylor" wrote...
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 04:05:35PM +0100, Lionel B wrote:
> >"Christopher Faylor" wrote...
> >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 03:26:25PM +0100, Lionel B wrote:
> >> >"Corinna Vinschen" wrote...
> >> >> On Apr 20 14:09, Lionel B wrote:
> >> >> > "Lionel B" wrote...
> >> >> > > "Corinna Vinschen" wrote...
> >> >> > > > On Apr 14 14:55, Lionel B wrote:
> >> >> > > > > Hi,
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > I seem to have hit the same issue as described in:
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2005-03/msg00919.html
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Please test the latest snapshot from http://cygwin.com/snapshots/
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Thanks, it appears to fix the problem. Will test more thoroughly.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Just checking: the fix doesn't appear to have made it into the 1.5.15-1 release - is that correct?
> >> >>
> >> >> No.
> >> >
> >> >Errrm... is that:
> >> >
> >> >(A) "No, it hasn't fixed the problem"
> >> >
> >> >or
> >> >
> >> >(B)  "No, that is not correct, it has fixed the problem"?
> >>
> >> I don't really understand the confusion.  You asked "Is that correct?"
> >> Corinna said "No".
> >
> >Riiiiight ...  let's see now.  So my statement "the fix doesn't appear
> >to have made it into the 1.5.15-1 release" is *not* correct...  so the
> >fix *did* make it into the release after all.  That's strange, because
> >I downloaded it, tried it and came to the conclusion that, since I
> >still appeared[1] to have the same problem, the fix probably[1]
> >*hadn't* made it into the release.  Now I'm *really* confused.
> >
> >[1] I thought it conceivable that the fix might have been "un-fixed" by
> >some other change, or that I could even be experiencing a different
> >problem.  Hence my mailing the list for confirmation.
>
> Sorry.  I must have missed the part where you mentioned that you'd downloaded
> 1.5.15, tried it, found that the problem was still there despite having been
> fixed in a snapshot,

Fair enough. My bad. I should have made that clear.

> and provided cygcheck output along the guidelines at
> http://cygwin.com/problems.html.
>
> I guess both Corinna and I missed the fact that you'd already downloaded
> the latest version since we both assumed you were waiting for someone to
> answer your question before downloading.

In fact I was waiting for someone to answer my question before sending cygcheck output, since if the fix wasn't there
anyway there'd have been little point in re-reporting a problem for which a fix was apparently known.

I shall send in a new problem report as soon as I can tear myself away from this list...