Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk Message-ID: <3B0031D4.2854BA33@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 20:28:20 +0100 From: Richard Dawe X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.17 i586) X-Accept-Language: de,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Fileutils 4.0 and symlinks References: <200105140748 DOT JAA08651 AT lws256 DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Hello. Martin Stromberg wrote: > > Richard said: > > that this is the wrong thing to do.) This caused the DOS box to GPF. I > > had to remove '-nostdlib' to prevent a GPF, when configuring. Using > > Lately I've had serious problems with utod. Perhaps related? > > What happens for me is WINDOZE puts up BSOD or just reboot without > warning. The main problem is I've not found any easy way to reproduce > it. If I after the reboot try to run the command again it works fine. I don't think the problems are related. I don't get a BSOD, just a DOS box crash. This is the error I get: MS-DOS Prompt This program has performed an illegal operation and will be terminated. Quit all programs, and then restart your computer. [Blah blah blah - restart the computer, etc.] The program encountered an unspecified exception. Fault location: 018F:10B8 Interrupts in service: None > I run the bleeding edge from CVS, plus Charles' stub correction, my > append fixes and Eli's NT-crash workaround. Ordinary version of the > tools from precompiled .ZIPs except fileutils which is recompiled with > with the latest libc. Note that utod comes from CVS so it's the > bleeding edge. > > This started to appear after the NT-crash workaround but I hadn't had > the need to use utod until recently so I don't particularly suspect > that patch. I'm running stock versions of virtually everything on Win98 SE. The only thing that I can think of that isn't stock is a couple of header files that libsocket overwrites, but I doubt they have any effect. > > BTW Mark, bnu210b.mft contains two directories listed - man and > > man/cat1. This is bad if you use 'rm -rf @bnu210b.mft' to uninstall > > binutils 2.10. > > Isn't the command you should use "rm -f @bnu210b.mft"? Yes, that's true. But I don't believe the manifest file should contain directories either. I don't know what everyone else does, but I make manifest files like this: find . ! -type d | sed -e 's:./::' | sort > manifest/package.mft (& again to include package.mft in package.mft listing) Bye, Rich =] -- Richard Dawe http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/