Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Return-Path: X-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slinky.cs.nyu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id jA2IL3H3026972; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 13:21:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 13:21:03 -0500 (EST) From: Igor Pechtchanski Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com To: Dave Korn cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: RE: cygcheck improvements In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Dave Korn wrote: > Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Dave Korn wrote: > > > >> Christopher Faylor wrote: > >>> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 05:37:25PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote: > >>>> Christopher Faylor wrote: > >>>>> What other kind of common things could cygcheck be testing for? > >> > >> Hey, I had another idea. It should definitely scan /etc/postinstall > >> and report any scripts that failed to complete (i.e. don't end with > >> '.done'). > > > > Sigh, this would imply that (a) postinstall scripts produce valuable exit > > codes (or are run with "set -e", so that they bail out at first sign of > > trouble), and that (b) setup doesn't rename scripts that didn't complete > > normally to "*.done". Neither is true at the moment. PTC, of course. > > Well, only if we wanted it to be 100% infallible. But my line of > thinking is that cygcheck could do a lot of the basic checks that we > normally advise people to do manually when they present on the list with > tricky-to-diagnose problems. Just because postinstall scripts don't > always report errors correctly, and just because setup does sometimes > rename scripts that didn't complete, that doesn't stop us from advising > people to manually browse through /etc/postinstall looking for scripts > that don't have ".done" on the end. So it would be just as useful and > likely to save us a cycle of message-and-response if cygcheck had > already provided that information for us. Fair enough. I guess what I was saying is that the addition of the two things I mentioned would make that part of cygcheck output all the more valuable. :-) BTW, one thing that's been suggested a while ago is to have cygcheck report the user mounts for "SYSTEM" -- that may prevent services from working properly, and is rather hard to get from the command line (without getting into the whole sysbash process, that is). Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. /DA --jA2IL5H2026974.1130955665/slinky.cs.nyu.edu-- ReSent-Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 14:38:12 -0500 (EST) ReSent-From: Igor Pechtchanski ReSent-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com ReSent-Subject: RE: cygcheck improvements ReSent-Message-ID: On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Dave Korn wrote: > Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Dave Korn wrote: > > > >> Christopher Faylor wrote: > >>> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 05:37:25PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote: > >>>> Christopher Faylor wrote: > >>>>> What other kind of common things could cygcheck be testing for? > >> > >> Hey, I had another idea. It should definitely scan /etc/postinstall > >> and report any scripts that failed to complete (i.e. don't end with > >> '.done'). > > > > Sigh, this would imply that (a) postinstall scripts produce valuable exit > > codes (or are run with "set -e", so that they bail out at first sign of > > trouble), and that (b) setup doesn't rename scripts that didn't complete > > normally to "*.done". Neither is true at the moment. PTC, of course. > > Well, only if we wanted it to be 100% infallible. But my line of > thinking is that cygcheck could do a lot of the basic checks that we > normally advise people to do manually when they present on the list with > tricky-to-diagnose problems. Just because postinstall scripts don't > always report errors correctly, and just because setup does sometimes > rename scripts that didn't complete, that doesn't stop us from advising > people to manually browse through /etc/postinstall looking for scripts > that don't have ".done" on the end. So it would be just as useful and > likely to save us a cycle of message-and-response if cygcheck had > already provided that information for us. Fair enough. I guess what I was saying is that the addition of the two things I mentioned would make that part of cygcheck output all the more valuable. :-) BTW, one thing that's been suggested a while ago is to have cygcheck report the user mounts for "SYSTEM" -- that may prevent services from working properly, and is rather hard to get from the command line (without getting into the whole sysbash process, that is). Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. /DA --jA2IL5H2026974.1130955665/slinky.cs.nyu.edu-- -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/