Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/11/30/09:15:33
Adding a description doesn't help me. But Corinna's thoughts sound
viable. Given the specs (and overclock) on my machine, it's quite
feasible that services without dependancies are being started too
quickly. Unfortunately, I don't see a way (in 2K) to add a dependancy.
Nor does TCP/IP exist as a service.
I'll look into it more at the office...
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 04:24:54AM -0500, Shawn Behrens wrote:
>
>>service called sshd (which already existed), so the sshd service now has a
>>'Description'. I can't see that there were any other changes to the
>>service; which doesn't mean there weren't any, of course, just that I
>>can't see them.
>>
>>Could some of the gals and guys who have the same problem try adding a
>>Description to the service via regedit, see whether it starts up then?
>>
>
>What other people with problems starting these service can try is to
>add a dependency to another service as e.g. tcpip. This could
>positively influence the load order of the services. Perhaps they are
>just started too early.
>
>>I do notice that while sshd has cygrunsrv as the executable, inetd lists
>>itself (c:\cygwin\usr\sbin\inetd.exe) as the executable to be started as a
>>service. Is this the way it's supposed to be? Shouldn't inetd also use
>>cygrunsrv?
>>
>
>Inetd has been ported many moons before cygrunsrv came to existence.
>So it has the NT service handling code builtin.
>
>It's a good question, though. I'm not quite sure if we shouldn't
>better revert these NT service stuff from inetd and use cygrunsrv
>to start it. It's way cleaner a solution.
>
>Corinna
>
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -