This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: More: [1.7] packaging problem? Both /usr/bin/ and /usr/lib/ are non-empty
- From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-developers at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 16:05:54 +0200
- Subject: Re: More: [1.7] packaging problem? Both /usr/bin/ and /usr/lib/ are non-empty
- References: <1242136282.31390.1315054305@webmail.messagingengine.com>
- Reply-to: cygwin-developers at cygwin dot com
On May 12 09:51, Charles Wilson wrote:
> 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 ...]
Looks good.
> 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...
See this message? That means, at the time 000-cygwin-post-install.sh
was called the Cygwin DLL didn't find an fstab file.
> /cygdrive/h/.bashrc
???
> 2009/05/11 14:56:07 running: C:\cygwin-1.7\bin\bash.exe -c
> /etc/postinstall/passwd-grp.sh
No such "Huh?" message anymore. So at this point the /etc/fstab file
already exists.
> /cygdrive/h/.bashrc
But I don't get what this .bashrc pathname is doing here every time.
> 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:
Ok, that makes two confused. I assume I'm not confused and don't
understand the confusion for the simple reason that I created the text.
I'll change that to use another term.
> 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
Thanks for the selection.
> 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...)
But the above snippet from setup.log.full suggests differently. The
/etc/fstab file must have been created, otherwise you would have had
"Huh?" messages all over the place.
Yes, I'm perplexed.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat