Sender:	rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID:	<3B0031D4.2854BA33@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date:	Mon, 14 May 2001 20:28:20 +0100
From:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.17 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	de,fr
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Fileutils 4.0 and symlinks
References:	<200105140748 DOT JAA08651 AT lws256 DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Martin Stromberg wrote:
> 
> Richard said:
> > that this is the wrong thing to do.) This caused the DOS box to GPF. I
> > had to remove '-nostdlib' to prevent a GPF, when configuring. Using
> 
> Lately I've had serious problems with utod. Perhaps related?
> 
> What happens for me is WINDOZE puts up BSOD or just reboot without
> warning. The main problem is I've not found any easy way to reproduce
> it. If I after the reboot try to run the command again it works fine.

I don't think the problems are related. I don't get a BSOD, just a DOS box
crash. This is the error I get:

    MS-DOS Prompt

    This program has performed an illegal operation and will be
    terminated. Quit all programs, and then restart your computer.

    [Blah blah blah - restart the computer, etc.]

    The program encountered an unspecified exception.

    Fault location: 018F:10B8

    Interrupts in service: None

> I run the bleeding edge from CVS, plus Charles' stub correction, my
> append fixes and Eli's NT-crash workaround. Ordinary version of the
> tools from precompiled .ZIPs except fileutils which is recompiled with
> with the latest libc. Note that utod comes from CVS so it's the
> bleeding edge.
> 
> This started to appear after the NT-crash workaround but I hadn't had
> the need to use utod until recently so I don't particularly suspect
> that patch.

I'm running stock versions of virtually everything on Win98 SE. The only
thing that I can think of that isn't stock is a couple of header files
that libsocket overwrites, but I doubt they have any effect.

> > BTW Mark, bnu210b.mft contains two directories listed - man and
> > man/cat1. This is bad if you use 'rm -rf @bnu210b.mft' to uninstall
> > binutils 2.10.
> 
> Isn't the command you should use "rm -f @bnu210b.mft"?

Yes, that's true. But I don't believe the manifest file should contain
directories either. I don't know what everyone else does, but I make
manifest files like this:

    find . ! -type d | sed -e 's:./::' | sort > manifest/package.mft
    (& again to include package.mft in package.mft listing)

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe
http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/

- Raw text -