X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<5028E07D.1010501@gmx.de>
Date:	Mon, 13 Aug 2012 13:09:49 +0200
From:	Herbert Stocker <hersto AT gmx DOT de>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Side-by-side configuration is incorrect reported as permission denied
References:	<k045k2$gvk$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org> <5025C431 DOT 7050201 AT cygwin DOT com> <CA+7connXxSSkw-fhHvqbVanEvX7YHOVVdLndmqmd07xRvFT49Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20120812170641 DOT GC32748 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <CA+7conm=AXUX9Xfj67tGRgMbrgC47W9QHuQ2L3V2p_=7Cf81GQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CA+sc5m=myjskB4zG0HARWHvZMQGz-k=j7jT=q1Gny4XpNgMfCg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20120812205407 DOT GA7337 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <CA+7conmB1mt25F+d1-TsseeK=eXRRD5JrGW42u=Mka8061A7Zg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <5028B9D5 DOT 6050007 AT gmx DOT de> <20120813084755 DOT GA24539 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
In-Reply-To:	<20120813084755.GA24539@calimero.vinschen.de>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On 13.08.2012 10:47, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 13 10:24, Herbert Stocker wrote:
>> There is no need for the 'no', i'd suggest ELIBBAD.
> Not bad, either.  So we have ELIBACC, ELIBBADD, and ENOPKG as
> suggestions.
I'd vote against ENOPKG. That means: /* Package not installed */
A side-by-side error does not primarily mean that something is not 
installed.

>> (And to bring back to memory, i'd also suggest to add EFAIL be added)
> Here's a clear "no".  EFAIL is not a useful error message.  It's not
> even slightly wrong, like EACCES in this case might be, it's entirely
> lacking information.
My suggestion was not to propose EFAIL as an error message for a 
side-by-side error.
Not at all.
i should have made an extra toipic, actually, and if i would consider it 
important enough, i
would make one now.

What i meant was that sometimes i'm writing a program, and when 
searching for an
appropriate error code in errno.h, i don't find one. Then i would prefer 
to resort to some
genereric EFAIL.
Imagine a routine decodes an mp3 stream and fails because the mp3 data 
is corrupt.
What error code would match this? The best i found was:
    #define EBADMSG 77.     /* Trying to read unreadable message */

But i guess the solution would be to stay away from these more 
OS-centric error codes.

Again, i do not have a strong desire on discussing EFAIL, so we can stop 
here.

Herbert



--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -