X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.7 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20120812170641.GC32748@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
References: <k045k2$gvk$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org>	<5025C431 DOT 7050201 AT cygwin DOT com>	<CA+7connXxSSkw-fhHvqbVanEvX7YHOVVdLndmqmd07xRvFT49Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>	<20120812170641 DOT GC32748 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:56:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+7conm=AXUX9Xfj67tGRgMbrgC47W9QHuQ2L3V2p_=7Cf81GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Side-by-side configuration is incorrect reported as permission denied
From: Pawel Jasinski <pawel DOT jasinski AT gmail DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
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

hi,

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:07:00AM +0200, Pawel Jasinski wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>>
>>> Cygwin doesn't report Windows error codes.  It reports POSIX ones.  I
>>> have no idea why there would be a POSIX error code for side-by-side
>>> errors but if there were, then reporting that is more appropriate.
>>>
>>
>>out of curiosity I have poked into errno.h (as well as man page) on
>>linux and linux is easier on its users.
>>It uses values defined by POSIX as well as values which make sense in
>>context of Linux.
>>Would you consider relaxing your policy in respect of error codes and
>>POSIX where would it be a benefit for the user?
>>
>>In this particular case, all situation where errno (or a message) is
>>simply reported back to the user would be fine.
>>Only code which does errno specific attempts to recover or be clever
>>about it would be affected.
>
> Yes, and, what do we do with these "clever" apps?  Tell them that they
> are out of luck because we've just pulled the rug out from under them?


For the clever apps, I wonder what the app can do about no permissions
anyway other than report it.
And since the problem reported now as permission problem has nothing
to do with it, the corrective actions are adding to the confusion.

Most of the one I know report errno and eventually error message and
say bye bye. It is up to you to sudo or "run as".
I am still not at home, so no stats from the packages.

>
>>At the moment I my internet access is weak, but once I am at home this
>>would be a grep through cygwin packages to find out such a use.
>
> Windows has 15999 error codes.  Linux has ~133.  Some UNIX apps which
> recognize errnos rely on being able to index into the "sys_errlist"
> array.  This would mean that we would need to set up a sys_errlist
> array with all of these error codes, and since we already map a lot
> of them, come up with some way to deal with that.

wow, the number of error codes is impressive.
But we are talking about one, not 15999 minus whatever is already mapped.
How about taking care of the things which annoys your users.
This potentially would have a very positive side effect, decreased
traffic on this mailing list.

>
> If you can find a nice Linux errno which maps from ERROR_SXS_CANT_GEN_ACTCTX
> to something other than EACCES I'd be happy to change Cygwin.

Sorry I was not clear. The point was not to use linux error code. what
I was trying to say is linux does not follow POSIX only error codes
policy.
Such a policy is impractical. Your point was POSIX only, wasn't it?
You can add cygwin specific error codes.


> Otherwise,
> no, I'm not going to worry about this issue.

Could you please qualify your no.
No, as long as you have to do it yourself.
No, no patches will be considered.
No, even if the request comes from red hat support channel (I consider
buying one, I wonder what can I get for the money).


Cheers,
Pawel

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple