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
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:15:07 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: CygWin under WIN 98SE - login, passwd, group, services
Message-ID: <20010221101507.N908@cygbert.vinschen.de>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <3A93707F DOT DC9D1BBC AT charter DOT net> <20010221090021 DOT K908 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3A937AFF DOT 825F78B9 AT charter DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <3A937AFF.825F78B9@charter.net>; from greggsmith@charter.net on Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 12:23:27AM -0800

On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 12:23:27AM -0800, Gregg Smith wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > /bin/passwd doesn't work on 9x/ME. The current stable solution is using
> > /bin/crypt to generate DES passwords as you do. There speaks nothing
> > against including the /bin/crypt functionality into /bin/passwd but
> > seriously - it's on the lower right end of my TODO list and it hasn't
> > moved from there for months. Feel free to contribute here.
> >
> 
> Unfortunately, I think I'm some ways away from being able to contribute usable
> code as yet <smile>. I can accept the answer, though. Is the DLL error
> expected then, or should only the functionality be affected in Win98?

It's expected. `passwd' uses a netapi function not present in 9x/ME.
Dynamically loading would milden the effect on 9x/ME systems, though.

> > You don't have services in 9x/ME at all.
> 
> Okay, I'll accept that. The question still stands: Is there a better way of
> terminating inetd than kill-ing it's process?

You mean, besides shutting down Windows? Otherwise the answer is "no".
But you shouldn't mind. It's the standard way to get rid of a daemon
under UN*X, Don't misinterpret the word `kill'. It's just sending a
signal to the daemon to end itself.

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple