Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:39:58 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers <cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
Subject: Re: Problems with autoconf-2.52 testsuite using current CVS Cygwin
Message-ID: <20010804123958.A2863@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers <cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
References: <996329431 DOT 27668 DOT ezmlm AT sources DOT redhat DOT com> <3B63432E DOT 6050309 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3B649305 DOT 2090302 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <010101c118ca$01155440$0300a8c0 AT ufo> <20010730110206 DOT A11714 AT redhat 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: <20010730110206.A11714@redhat.com>; from cgf@redhat.com on Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 11:02:06AM -0400

On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 11:02:06AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 05:04:00PM +0930, Trevor Forbes wrote:
>>For info.
>>
>>I rebuilt ash with the following line changed in shell.h
>># ifdef __CYGWIN__
>>#  undef VFORK
>>#  define VFORK 1   -> 0
>>
>>All autoconfig test pass, I rebuilt and checked autoconf (CVS ver) 3 times
>>to see if the was any  problems and it is rock solid....
>>
>>I don't see the premissions problems Chuck is getting but I use Admin
>>rights.
>
>Ok.  We seem to be slowly zeroing in on the problem.  Is someone willing
>to debug what's going on?  Why are the files deleted with
>VFORK/no-vfork?
>
>Has anyone tried turning off VFORK in cygwin and seeing if that solves
>the problem, too?
>
>We need to understand what mechanism is not being triggered to delete these
>files.

Anyone working on this?  I'd like to make a new release someday and this
should obviously be fixed.

It would be wonderful if I didn't have to actually load the newest version
of autoconf on my system and debug this after all of the previous debugging
attempts.

cgf