Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 16:28:35 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: chroot bug Message-ID: <20010806162835.A11479@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <85256AA0 DOT 0055562C DOT 00 AT nyc-ntgw-n01 DOT ny DOT jpmorgan DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <85256AA0.0055562C.00@nyc-ntgw-n01.ny.jpmorgan.com>; from yap_noel@jpmorgan.com on Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 11:32:05AM -0400 On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 11:32:05AM -0400, Noel L Yap wrote: >I have a working snapshot dated 2001 April 25 (or around there). The current >snapshot is buggy. It doesn't look like chroot.c has changed between the two so >it's either a header file change or a dll change that introduced the bug. So you are using a snapshot from before 1.3.2? I hope this is a typo. What, precisely is "buggy" in the current snapshots? If you are going to make a statement like this, you should qualify it with some kind of details. FWIW, a very cursory glance at the *cygwin* ChangeLog shows that there have been changes to chroot. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/