This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: More: [1.7] packaging problem? Both /usr/bin/ and /usr/lib/ are non-empty


Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> this could only happen if /etc/fstab hasn't been created right at 
> the start of the postinstall.

Apparently that's exactly what has happened...

> Did you examine setup.log.full at the point where the postinstall
> starts?  What's the package order?  Does
> C:\cygwin-1.7\bin\bash.exe -c /etc/postinstall/000-cygwin-post-install.sh
> run first?  Any error messages?

...
Installing file cygfile:///etc/postinstall/update-info-dir.sh
2009/05/11 14:55:57 Changing gid back to original
Visited: 441 nodes out of 1454 while creating dependency order.
Dependency order of packages: base-cygwin base-passwd cygwin libiconv2
libintl8 libintl3 libgmp3 gawk tzcode coreutils texinfo _update-info-dir
[... removed ...]
2009/05/11 14:55:58 running: C:\cygwin-1.7\bin\bash.exe -c
/etc/postinstall/000-cygwin-post-install.sh
Huh?  No /etc/fstab file in \??\C:\cygwin-1.7\etc\fstab.d\cwilso11? 
Using default root and cygdrive prefix...
/cygdrive/h/.bashrc
2009/05/11 14:56:07 running: C:\cygwin-1.7\bin\bash.exe -c
/etc/postinstall/passwd-grp.sh
/cygdrive/h/.bashrc
2009/05/11 14:56:09 running: C:\cygwin-1.7\bin\bash.exe -c
/etc/postinstall/coreutils.sh
/cygdrive/h/.bashrc
...

> Did you see my patch in
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-developers/2009-05/msg00030.html?

I did. I also look at the revised version in:
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-developers/2009-05/msg00036.html

I think I agree with Eric. I know what we're talking about, and even I
was momentarily confused by the use of "read only" even in these
discussions.  It's fine if you want to (re)use the currently
non-functional MOUNT_RO option internally, as we (cygwin) can't control
whether a mount point is read-only at all anyway. That's up to Windows. 
But...the documentation and user error messages should *not* say
anything about "read only" -- in those cases, I think we should use a
different term.  Perhaps Eric's suggestion of "fixed", or maybe some
other synonym that doesn't imply 'correcting a defect', like:

permanent, steady
Synonyms:       anchored, attached, established, fast, firm, hitched,
hooked, immobile, immotile, immovable, located, locked, made fast,
nailed, quiet, rigid, rooted, secure, set, settled, situated, solid,
stable, steadfast, stiff, still, tenacious, tight

But, those objections are all stylistic. Functionally, I think your
patch addresses the known issues reasonably.  (Although, for some reason
my installation didn't create the /etc/fstab.  Your patch will probably
paper over whatever that underlying reason is; that is, I believe that
with your change, my installation would have worked properly...but *why*
did the current system fail to create /etc/fstab? Dunno...)

--
Chuck


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]