X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 11:59:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Igor Peshansky <pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: services not starting with 20060104 snapshot
In-Reply-To: <20060105163113.GF32362@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0601051153590.1754@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <20060105035924 DOT GA29865 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>  <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0601042311530 DOT 1754 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>  <20060105042927 DOT GA30538 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0601050008330 DOT 1754 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>  <20060105060545 DOT GA31370 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0601050904340 DOT 1754 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>  <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0601050924090 DOT 1754 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>  <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0601050935500 DOT 1754 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>  <20060105150847 DOT GB31370 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0601051020540 DOT 1754 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>  <20060105163113 DOT GF32362 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Note-from-DJ: This may be spam

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:28:23AM -0500, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 09:38:09AM -0500, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >> >On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > >> Also, what version of XP are you running?  Pro?  Is it
> >> >> > > >> up-to-date with all service packs and updates?
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >I'm running XP Pro SP1, with most updates applied (except
> >> >> > > >KB835409 and KB910437, which are pending).
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Maybe that is a clue, as Yitzchak suggested.  I'd missed that
> >> >> > > in the cygcheck output.  I'm running SP2 and I believe Corinna
> >> >> > > is also.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It does look like a problem with SP1 (and Karl's message
> >> >> > supports this as well).  Unfortunately, I'm not at liberty to
> >> >> > install SP2 on this machine (due to licensing restrictions).
> >> >> > So I'll have to dig until a solution is found.

I'm wondering why the former version worked with SP2...

> >> >> Is real_path.iscygexec() the right test for noncygwin_process?
> >> >> It looks reversed...
> >> >
> >> >And indeed it was.  Negating that test brought back the output of
> >> >commands invoked via ssh.  I'll submit a patch to cygwin-patches in
> >> >a bit.  Whew!
> >>
> >> You're asking if !iscygexec is the right way to detect a
> >> "noncygwin_process".
> >> Yes.
> >
> >No, I was actually asking whether iscygexec() was the right way to
> >detect a "noncygwin_process", since that's exactly the test used in
> >spawn_guts. You just confirmed that it isn't (and that its inverse,
> >!iscygexec(), is).
>
> In the future I'll try to limit my stupid remarks to one mailing list.

What, and make us miss all the fun? :-D

> Your interpretation of the problem was correct (although there still may
> be a lurking problem with non-cygwin processes) and my remarks about it
> should be disregarded because I was confused.
>
> (I've got a nice headache going on which explains the confusion but I
> should be experienced enough by now to know not to trust my judgement
> when I have to squint at the screen.)

Actually, it was the associated ChangeLog entry that confirmed it for me.
Looks like you originally intended to make it "cygwin_process"...

> Please give yourself a gold star for tracking this down, Igor.

Thanks, don't mind if I do... :-)

> Maybe now I can sleep tonight.

Ditto.
	Igor
P.S. The changes with "CygwinInvisible" WindowStation were an attempt to
fix this problem, weren't they?  Are they still needed?
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu | igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"


--
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/