Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/09/26/06:36:49
On 26 September 2006 10:20, Chris Taylor wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 26 September 2006 05:22, Artie Ziff wrote:
>>
>>> I recently experienced a similar scenario, posted a general description
>>> of the user experience (with some questions) in an attempt to elicit
>>> general comments. I rcv'd the same response as those before me... as is
>>> evidenced in the archives. That is, no response. I suppose the
>>> philosophy is: if there is no response then no problem exists. ;-)
>>
>> Nope. The philosophy is: if there is no information, then no diagnosis
>> can be made.
>>
>>>> Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Cygchecks, gentlemen, please. As attachments, please. Let's see what
>> you've got so far, and then later we might need to look at setup logs and
>> suchlike.
>>
>> cheers,
>> DaveK
>
>
> I wonder if perhaps they think they can't run cygcheck because they
> haven't finished installing cygwin yet?
>
> It does seem that many people are unaware that cygcheck is a native
> win32 binary...
Ooh, yes, I guess I should have pointed that out.
Artie, Eric, as long as it's got as far as the postinstall stage, that means most of the installation is there; postinstall scripts are mostly written in bash shell script, and at the time they are run enough of cygwin should have been installed for them to work. Ceratinly all the binary files should have been installed, and since cygcheck is a native win32 program and will run no matter how borked the cygwin installation is, you should have no problems invoking it from a DOS shell in the cygwin bin dir.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
--
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 -