Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<00bb01c2caff$899b1af0$78d96f83@pomello>
From:	"Max Bowsher" <maxb AT ukf DOT net>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>, "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman AT CraneSoftwrights DOT com>
References:	<5 DOT 2 DOT 0 DOT 9 DOT 0 DOT 20030202154555 DOT 02e2eed8 AT junk>
Subject:	Re: Setup 2.249.2.5, Package 'grep' 2.5-1, missing 'egrep.exe' and 'fgrep.exe'
Date:	Sun, 2 Feb 2003 21:10:39 -0000
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

G. Ken Holman wrote:
> At 2003-02-02 15:25 -0500, Christopher Faylor <cgf-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 03:05:07PM -0500, G. Ken Holman wrote:
>>> I used to use one of the Cygwin B packages where the egrep.exe
>>> utility was included.
>>
>> Sigh.
>
> I apologize for having taken your time with this to warrant such an
> exclamation.

I think the "Sigh" was referring to the fact that people are *still* using
Bxx versions, even though they are about 5 years old.

> I was citing my previous experience with Cygwin where I
> had utilized an "exe" and created ".bat" files that pointed to it.
> After installing the new version my batch files stopped working.

Well, Bxx -> 1.3.x is a major version number increase. A little breakage
here and there is to be expected.

>>> I'm on an XP system and I downloaded replacement packages yesterday
>>> and ensured that I included the "grep" package.
>>>
>>> I went to use "egrep.exe" and found it wasn't installed.  I did
>>> find an egrep.1 but it just points to grep.
>>
>> egrep and fgrep are symbolic links to grep.exe.  Both work properly
>> when invoked from bash.  I just checked.
>
> Perhaps ... but I'm not running under bash and never have.  Did I
> miss a documented restriction that the programs *only* run under bash?

No, but running symlinks from a non-Cygwin program is not possible.

> Could there be a FAQ that says "where is the .exe I'm expecting?" ...
> when not running in bash?  I did a search on the FAQ TOC for .exe and
> didn't find anything.

Its not frequently-asked - possibly because most people use Cygwin shells.

> I honestly tried to solve this without burdening the list with another
> question, and was basing my question on my prior experience with the
> Cygwin collection.

Good. But the list is here to help, so don't worry. Also, if you have just
upgraded from a Bxx version, then your prior experience will be a little
out-of-date.


Max.


--
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 -