Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-Id:	<4.3.1.2.20001206140123.020ffc00@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
X-Sender:	lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com
X-Mailer:	QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
Date:	Wed, 06 Dec 2000 14:03:45 -0500
To:	Charles Krug <charles AT pentek DOT com>
From:	"Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Reproduced it finally
Cc:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<20001206133231.A17614@pentek.com>
References:	<4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20001206122555 DOT 020e0bd0 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com>
	<20001206094141 DOT D17209 AT pentek DOT com>
	<20001204203948 DOT 9541 DOT qmail AT web117 DOT yahoomail DOT com>
	<20001204181002 DOT C14648 AT pentek DOT com>
	<20001204182503 DOT C28620 AT redhat DOT com>
	<20001206094141 DOT D17209 AT pentek DOT com>
	<20001206121754 DOT E17209 AT pentek DOT com>
	<4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20001206122555 DOT 020e0bd0 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0

At 01:32 PM 12/6/2000, Charles Krug wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 12:26:53PM -0500, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
> > And I assume you know advapi32.dll is in your path as sh.exe sees it, right?
>
>Yes, I just verified that, both in bash and in subshells, whether bash
>or sh.
>
>Were this the case, wouldn't it fail as soon as sh tried to spawn its
>first Cygwin application, rather than waiting until the 20th or 30th
>item or even longer?


Yes.


>I'm curious about the fact that it sometimes completes the rest of the
>script after the failure--sometimes with additional occurances of the
>same failure, but on occasion without further error.  And again, I've
>run the thing at least once with no errors from a fresh unpacking.
>
>The inconsistancy what I find must curious.


I'm guessing (only!) that the environment is somehow getting trashed in
some nested invocation.  That could explain the behavior.  I can't say 
that's it though...




Larry Hall                              lhall AT rfk DOT com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
118 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com

- Raw text -