Mail Archives: cygwin/2007/01/13/14:59:48
> I simply asked a question. You provided an answer.
> Whose undies are in a bunch here?
As did I. Sorry I misinterpreted your tone.
> Wouldn't it be much more
> "stylistic" and clear to simply point directly at the Perl you insist
> on
> using? Or did you really mean you are putting /usr/bin/perl in there
> to appear to be portable? That sort of answer I'd understand... except you
> have already stated that you don't care about portability.
It is my opinion that it looks better. I'm sorry you disagree.
> > Seriously, are you trying to attack me or understand the problem? I
> am
> > trying to be nice, I already apologized for my behavior earlier.
> My opinion on this situation does not require that I'm your friend.
I am not asking for friendship, just civility.
> And it's an answer of confusion. If I were to work on your script I
> would see /usr/bin/perl and think "Great. He's using a standard perl
> and
> I should be able to easily use this under Linux or Cygwin's perl, etc.
> Wait... Err... No... He's symlinked this to ActiveState!" and would be
> scratching my head wondering why you attempted to appear "Unix-like"
> with the shebang line yet are using a proprietary perl....
My scripts will not leave this computer. I have absolutely no
intention of sharing any of my code. The only person who has
to understand it is me. I'm sorry it confused you.
> I know you said you want to use Win32 stuff but there's Win32 stuff
> that
> you could use in Cygwin too. If you really like Linux style paths, use
> Windows and Cygwin, seem to exert full control of the environment I
> would think using Cygwin's Perl, where you can more easily use Linux
> style paths not only for shebang but more conveniently throughout your
> script, would be something you'd want to do...
Agreed. In the long term it may happen, but not at this moment.
> BTW you never answered the question of what happens in ActiveState when
> you call setsid. I'll answer it for you. It returns "Not implemented on
> this platform" or something like that. IOW ActiveState does not
> implement nor support calling setsid. Why would you want setsid? It's
> useful in writing daemons, something I do on occasion. Along with that
> ActiveState doesn't seem to handle signals well. Forgive me here my
> memory is hazy as I had worked on this problem several years ago. I was
> attempting to write a daemon that would be essentially a Windows
> service
> and wanted it to be a multi threaded server meaning I wanted to fork
> and
> exec copies of myself to handle incoming requests. This requires proper
> signal handling. I was having problems with this so I queried in
> ActiveState forums and the guy responsible for signals in ActiveState
> responded that Windows doesn't support signals very well!
>
> Back to Cygwin's Perl I could call setsid as well as wrote a little
> test
> program that set, sent and trapped all 30 or so supported signals
> without a problem. So much for ActiveState!
I will deal with it if an when I need to write a daemon script. Thanks
for the information.
> You've come in here and asked a question to which you have been given
> an
> answer. You insist on mixing together to separate distinct technologies
> that were not designed to work together where experienced people here
> advise that you stop fighting the two use the technologies more in the
> way they were intended than in ways they weren't intended. Ah but you
> insist on doing it the hard way. "Fine then, have fun with your
> problem"
> is not an unreasonable nor should it be an unexpected response for you.
I have already solved my problem, I will be using Mr. Peshansky's idea.
You have been asking me questions ever since, I am simply trying to provide
you with answers thereby extending to you the same courtesy others have on
this thread.
--
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 -