Re: antrun versus wsl versus cygwin

[Franz Fehringer <fehrin2 at gmail dot com>]

Am 18.02.2019 um 17:20 schrieb Houder:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:39:11, Franz Fehringer  wrote:
>> Am 18.02.2019 um 14:07 schrieb Houder:
>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 13:15:02, Franz Fehringer  wrote:
> [snip]
> 
>>>> <exec executable="C:\Tools\Cygwin\bin\which" failonerror="true">
>>>>   <arg line="bash" />
>>>> </exec>
>>>> <exec executable="bash" failonerror="true">
>>>>   <arg line="-c src/main/resources/build" />
>>>> </exec>
>>>>
>>>> gives
>>>>
>>>> [exec] /usr/bin/bash
>>>> [exec] W i n d o w s   S u b s y s t e m   f o r   L i n u x   h a s   n
>>>> o   i n s t a l l e d   d i s t r i b u ti o n s .
>>>> [exec]    D i s t r i b u t i o n s   c a n   b e   i n s t a l l e d
>>>> b y   v i s i t i n g   t h e   M i c r o s o f t   S t o r e :
>>>> [exec]    h t t p s : / / a k a . m s / w s l s t o r e
> [snip]
> 
>>> I have no idea what "build" is or does ...
>>>
>>> Apparently, it refers in some way to the WSL executables ...
> [snip]
> 
>> build is some simple script which does not in any way refer to wsl. The
>> result woould be the same without (i will check in the evening).
> 
> build is a script ?
> 
> Drop the "-c" argument. Use "bash script" in stead in your antrun script,
> like you would on the bash command line:
> 
> $ bash script
> 
> Henri
> 
> 

Interesting idea, but no improvement.
Currently i work with the renamed (wslbash.exe) wsl bash until i (or
someone else) find(s) a better solution.



--
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