This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: services not starting with 20060104 snapshot
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 09:38:09AM -0500, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > >> Also, what version of XP are you running? Pro? Is it up-to-date
> >> > > >> with all service packs and updates?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >I'm running XP Pro SP1, with most updates applied (except KB835409
> >> > > >and KB910437, which are pending).
> >> > >
> >> > > Maybe that is a clue, as Yitzchak suggested. I'd missed that in the
> >> > > cygcheck output. I'm running SP2 and I believe Corinna is also.
> >> >
> >> > It does look like a problem with SP1 (and Karl's message supports this
> >> > as well). Unfortunately, I'm not at liberty to install SP2 on this
> >> > machine (due to licensing restrictions). So I'll have to dig until a
> >> > solution is found.
> >> >
> >> > Interestingly enough, the ssh daemon works just fine with the 20051003
> >> > snapshot. I'll try to track all the changes to fhandler_console
> >> > between then and now to see which one tickled this problem.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for helping me get to the bottom of this.
> >> Ok, I've tracked it down to these two changes:
> >> <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-cvs/2005-q4/msg00162.html> and
> >> <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-cvs/2005-q4/msg00166.html>. Commenting out
> >> the if test in the beginning of set_console_state_for_spawn() allows the
> >> sshd server to start successfully *and* show the output of a command.
> >> Is real_path.iscygexec() the right test for noncygwin_process? It looks
> >> reversed...
> >And indeed it was. Negating that test brought back the output of commands
> >invoked via ssh. I'll submit a patch to cygwin-patches in a bit. Whew!
> You're asking if !iscygexec is the right way to detect a
No, I was actually asking whether iscygexec() was the right way to detect
a "noncygwin_process", since that's exactly the test used in spawn_guts.
You just confirmed that it isn't (and that its inverse, !iscygexec(), is).
The parameter to set_console_state_for_spawn is currently computed in
spawn_guts as "real_path.iscygexec()", which, IIUC, will be true for
Cygwin processes and false for non-Cygwin processes (the corresponding
ChangeLog entry seems to imply that the meaning of the argument was
|\ _,,,---,,_ firstname.lastname@example.org | email@example.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html