Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001206140123.020ffc00@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 14:03:45 -0500
To: Charles Krug <charles AT pentek DOT com>
From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
Subject: Re: Reproduced it finally
Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
In-Reply-To: <20001206133231.A17614@pentek.com>
References: <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20001206122555 DOT 020e0bd0 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com>
 <20001206094141 DOT D17209 AT pentek DOT com>
 <20001204203948 DOT 9541 DOT qmail AT web117 DOT yahoomail DOT com>
 <20001204181002 DOT C14648 AT pentek DOT com>
 <20001204182503 DOT C28620 AT redhat DOT com>
 <20001206094141 DOT D17209 AT pentek DOT com>
 <20001206121754 DOT E17209 AT pentek DOT com>
 <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20001206122555 DOT 020e0bd0 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 01:32 PM 12/6/2000, Charles Krug wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 12:26:53PM -0500, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
> > And I assume you know advapi32.dll is in your path as sh.exe sees it, right?
>
>Yes, I just verified that, both in bash and in subshells, whether bash
>or sh.
>
>Were this the case, wouldn't it fail as soon as sh tried to spawn its
>first Cygwin application, rather than waiting until the 20th or 30th
>item or even longer?


Yes.


>I'm curious about the fact that it sometimes completes the rest of the
>script after the failure--sometimes with additional occurances of the
>same failure, but on occasion without further error.  And again, I've
>run the thing at least once with no errors from a fresh unpacking.
>
>The inconsistancy what I find must curious.


I'm guessing (only!) that the environment is somehow getting trashed in
some nested invocation.  That could explain the behavior.  I can't say 
that's it though...




Larry Hall                              lhall AT rfk DOT com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
118 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com