Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/11/02/14:39:17
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Dave Korn wrote:
> Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Dave Korn wrote:
> >
> >> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 05:37:25PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
> >>>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>>>> What other kind of common things could cygcheck be testing for?
> >>
> >> Hey, I had another idea. It should definitely scan /etc/postinstall
> >> and report any scripts that failed to complete (i.e. don't end with
> >> '.done').
> >
> > Sigh, this would imply that (a) postinstall scripts produce valuable exit
> > codes (or are run with "set -e", so that they bail out at first sign of
> > trouble), and that (b) setup doesn't rename scripts that didn't complete
> > normally to "*.done". Neither is true at the moment. PTC, of course.
>
> Well, only if we wanted it to be 100% infallible. But my line of
> thinking is that cygcheck could do a lot of the basic checks that we
> normally advise people to do manually when they present on the list with
> tricky-to-diagnose problems. Just because postinstall scripts don't
> always report errors correctly, and just because setup does sometimes
> rename scripts that didn't complete, that doesn't stop us from advising
> people to manually browse through /etc/postinstall looking for scripts
> that don't have ".done" on the end. So it would be just as useful and
> likely to save us a cycle of message-and-response if cygcheck had
> already provided that information for us.
Fair enough. I guess what I was saying is that the addition of the two
things I mentioned would make that part of cygcheck output all the more
valuable. :-)
BTW, one thing that's been suggested a while ago is to have cygcheck
report the user mounts for "SYSTEM" -- that may prevent services from
working properly, and is rather hard to get from the command line (without
getting into the whole sysbash process, that is).
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. /DA
--jA2IL5H2026974.1130955665/slinky.cs.nyu.edu--
ReSent-Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 14:38:12 -0500 (EST)
ReSent-From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
ReSent-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
ReSent-Subject: RE: cygcheck improvements
ReSent-Message-ID: <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0511021438120 DOT 21380 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Dave Korn wrote:
> Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Dave Korn wrote:
> >
> >> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 05:37:25PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
> >>>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>>>> What other kind of common things could cygcheck be testing for?
> >>
> >> Hey, I had another idea. It should definitely scan /etc/postinstall
> >> and report any scripts that failed to complete (i.e. don't end with
> >> '.done').
> >
> > Sigh, this would imply that (a) postinstall scripts produce valuable exit
> > codes (or are run with "set -e", so that they bail out at first sign of
> > trouble), and that (b) setup doesn't rename scripts that didn't complete
> > normally to "*.done". Neither is true at the moment. PTC, of course.
>
> Well, only if we wanted it to be 100% infallible. But my line of
> thinking is that cygcheck could do a lot of the basic checks that we
> normally advise people to do manually when they present on the list with
> tricky-to-diagnose problems. Just because postinstall scripts don't
> always report errors correctly, and just because setup does sometimes
> rename scripts that didn't complete, that doesn't stop us from advising
> people to manually browse through /etc/postinstall looking for scripts
> that don't have ".done" on the end. So it would be just as useful and
> likely to save us a cycle of message-and-response if cygcheck had
> already provided that information for us.
Fair enough. I guess what I was saying is that the addition of the two
things I mentioned would make that part of cygcheck output all the more
valuable. :-)
BTW, one thing that's been suggested a while ago is to have cygcheck
report the user mounts for "SYSTEM" -- that may prevent services from
working properly, and is rather hard to get from the command line (without
getting into the whole sysbash process, that is).
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. /DA
--jA2IL5H2026974.1130955665/slinky.cs.nyu.edu--
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -