Mail Archives: cygwin/2008/10/09/11:49:23
Phil Betts schrieb:
> Dirk Napierala wrote on Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:51 AM::
>
>
>> If I missed feedback to the thread below I have to apologize.
>> Otherwise I would like to recall this (my last post)again
>>
>
> Please don't keep reposting the same message. You can google the
> mailing list archives if you think you may have missed a response.
> If you haven't, then consider that maybe no-one has anything
> useful to post, or perhaps no-one feels inclined to help you any
> more.
>
I just did that because I was still seeking for help, and had the
feeling that I do not missed something
and just did not get a reply to my last post.
> It's your problem, yet you haven't exactly gone out of your way
> to help anyone get to the root of the problem. Simply rebutting
> all workaround suggestions with "can't do - corporate policy" has
> left me feeling that you're not really interested in solving your
> problem unless it means the SFX magically starts working.
>
I can only repeat that this has nothing to do with that I´m not filled
up with good will to assist you guys.
I did it as far as I could within my corp. restrictions and I post my
findings.
> I think you have to assume that the problem is intractable. E.g.
> changes to cygwin1.dll may just require more memory than before,
> and it would be unreasonable to assume that an ill-conceived SFX
> would inspire anyone to undo those changes. If this is the case,
> then the SFX is broken, not cygwin1.dll. You therefore need to
> consider the alternatives.
>
> I had prepared an email with a couple of suggestions for you to
> try, but I didn't bother sending it because of your attitude
> towards the other responses. I suspect the rest of the list have
> also given up on you.
>
This never was my intend
> Early on, you were asked to try some things that would have
> helped people to understand the cause of the problem but you were
> so reluctant to even try them that you can't blame people when
> they lose interest.
>
> If the issue is as important as your persistence suggests, I think
> you need to bang some heads at your workplace. If Oracle has
> such tight policies that you are unable to do your job, then the
> policies are just plain dumb (but then, so is using a single, huge
> SFX file).
>
You may understand that I'm not able to reply to this.........
> If you really do want help from the list:
>
> * Instead of just saying "can't do", tell us what you CAN do.
I will try everything what I can do. But I still have my restrictions .....
> * How EXACTLY is the SFX is run?
>
The problem is reproducible when the sfx filed is called from the bash
like ./sfx-file.exe
> * Does it use a fixed path?
>
If you mean that it is configured to extract automatically to a fixed
places the anser is YES :-)
> * Does it include the .exe extension?
>
Yes, the file called sfx-file.exe
I can make it available for you to test.
Please just reply to my corp. address and I can provide you with
download details.
The file content is confidential.
> IIRC you said the SFX is run from a bash script that you can't
> modify. Why not? If you can read the script, you can surely copy
> it and change the copy. If you can't do that, and you can't
> regenerate the SFX file which is clearly incompatible (for whatever
> reason) with the latest cygwin DLL, you have a broken _system_, and
> someone in your company who does have the authority to make changes
> to that system needs to get involved.
>
Agree, If we reached that point we have to do that.
>
> Phil
>
> --
> 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/
>
>
--
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 -