Mail Archives: cygwin/2008/10/10/05:37:41
Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E] schrieb:
> From: Dirk Napierala wrote on Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:48 AM
>
>> Phil Betts schrieb:
>> 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.
>>
>
> Let me get this straight:
>
> You adhere to a company policy that prohibits using a Windows component
> (cmd.exe) on a windows machine, but you feel free to send 1.5 Gig of
> confidential info to strangers?
>
> Anyone see a problem here?
>
> (Sorry for the sarcasm, but I really couldn't resist.)
>
> I think that you'd do better to sneak cmd.exe into your script.
>
> Without a Confidential Disclosure Agreement in place, you might risk
> permanently "tainting" the info as no-longer-confidential. INAL, so I
> don't *know* if it would. However, I'd guess that angry lawyers will
> have a better chance of getting you fired than angry IT people.
>
>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> You reached that point *long* ago. Why not try now? (If you'd tried
> while waiting** for a response from the list, you might have had a
> resolution by now.)
>
> Go to the policy guys and say "I cannot do my job unless you allow
> XXXX." If they say "No", go to your boss and say "I cannot do my job
> unless the policy guys allow XXXX." It's now your boss's problem, not
> yours. If anyone complains that you're not processing sfx-file.exe, you
> can legitimately pass the buck. (And if your boss is clueless, suggest
> that he go to the policy guy's boss.)
>
> (** I should acknowledge your self-restraint in repeating your requests.
> Many OPs in your position wait only a day or two and you waited a week
> or so.)
> ____
>
> I'll presume the following.
>
> - You've a "good" reason (company policy?) that you cannot use the
> simplest solution -- using the cygwin1.dll version that you know works.
> - You cannot download the source code and debug cygwin1.dll yourself.
> - You cannot put this on a Linux box or use another POSIX-on-Windows
> solution.
>
> Let me summarize:
>
> - This list is reasonably good with explanations and work-arounds.
> - You seem to need a fix for cygwin1.dll, not an explanation or
> work-around.
>
> Sounds like you are unlikely to get what you want from those in this
> forum who are not cygwin developers.
>
> Continuing ...
>
> - The only thing you seem to be able to change is the cygwin1.dll.
> - This is a volunteer project.
> - You are the only person who has this problem.
> - The cygwin developers are working on 1.7.
> - The cygwin developers want to do as little as possible on the 1.5
> series.
>
> I would then take the volunteer developers' hints that they are not
> going to spend their time on this problem.
>
> Consider Chris Faylor's suggestion
> <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2008-10/msg00188.html> that you take a
> support contract from Red Hat.
>
> Or offer someone else (not me) some money to do it.
> ____
>
> OK. One more try at a work-around.
>
> I assume that
> - the script cannot be changed,
> - bash actually does the launching, and
> - company policies allow you to somehow set an alias in the bash shell
> that launches sfx-file.exe.
>
> The idea is that when the script tells bash to run sfx-file.exe, bash
> actually runs "something else" and that "something else" runs
> sfx-file.exe successfully.
>
> In /etc/profile or .bashrc or your script or somewhere, set up two
> aliases. (You only need one but I don't know which.)
>
> alias sfx-file.exe=/path/sfx-file.sh
> alias sfx-file=/path/sfx-file.sh
>
> Write the following two-line script.
>
> #!/bin/sh
> cygstart /path/sfx-file.exe
>
> An alternative three-line script.
>
> #!/bin/sh
> cd /path
> cmd /c sfx-file.exe
>
> Putting the script in the same directory as sfx-file.exe is probably the
> safest possibility.
>
> When your script wants to run sfx-file.exe, it will actually run
> sfx-file.sh and that will launch sfx-file.exe.
>
> Let us know ...
>
Thanks Barry
Tested successfully .That works fine. But it is not just about one file.
There are hundreds of them called this way.
With various names. Also not all sfx files, but also other .exe files.
I really appreciate any feedback that is suggesting a workaround, and I
would like to thank everybody
who is so lastingly to follow up this, but what I do not understand is
that after
we found that only replacing the dll cause the prob and fix it again
when reverted, why isn't that enough
to troubleshoot the dll now? Also because it does not work with the 1.7
version.
> - Barry
> Disclaimer: Statements made herein are not made on behalf of NIAID.
>
--
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 -