Hi !
I've compiled and started a sshd server using cygwin, but when i try to
log on, my userid validation fails and the debug says that
my password is invalid.
I logon using the synntax \ and the sshd.exe is launched
from a command window(cmd.exe).
Any hints of what can be the problem ?
I supposed
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 12:03:59AM -0500, Paul McFerrin wrote:
>The first task to accomplish is the boot strapping of the system
>registry to get the proper mounts reflected. The clients are in a
>catch-22 position of not having a functioning cygwin to be able to use
>the mount command. It might
Hello:
This a actual case example of sharing a single installation of cygwin on
a server machine and having access to cygwin from multiple clients
without the need of installing cygwin on the clients.
First I like to congratulate the developers of cygwin for their wisdom
in using the registry as
Good - that left the mark on the archive.
>
>Gareth Pearce wrote:
>
>
>>>On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 06:31:01PM -0800, Michael wrote:
>>> >Setup.exe seems to crash and burn rather ungracefully if setup.ini is
>>> >missing it's timestamp and version lines at the top.
>>>
>>>Doctor, doctor! It hurts wh
Gareth Pearce wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 06:31:01PM -0800, Michael wrote:
>> >Setup.exe seems to crash and burn rather ungracefully if setup.ini is
>> >missing it's timestamp and version lines at the top.
>>
>> Doctor, doctor! It hurts when I do this...
>>
>> Luckily that will never be a
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 03:04:23AM +, Gareth Pearce wrote:
>>On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 06:31:01PM -0800, Michael wrote:
>>>Setup.exe seems to crash and burn rather ungracefully if setup.ini is
>>>missing it's timestamp and version lines at the top.
>>
>>Doctor, doctor! It hurts when I do this..
>
>On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 06:31:01PM -0800, Michael wrote:
> >Setup.exe seems to crash and burn rather ungracefully if setup.ini is
> >missing it's timestamp and version lines at the top.
>
>Doctor, doctor! It hurts when I do this...
>
>Luckily that will never be an issue for cygwin setup.
>
On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 06:31:01PM -0800, Michael wrote:
>Setup.exe seems to crash and burn rather ungracefully if setup.ini is
>missing it's timestamp and version lines at the top.
Doctor, doctor! It hurts when I do this...
Luckily that will never be an issue for cygwin setup.
cgf
--
Unsubsc
Take a look at the new examples in the dllhelpers. I've added four new
examples for building DLLs using libtool and friends.
--Chuck
Nousiainen wrote:
> This seems to be the most complicated thing .. building a DLL file. So,
> what is the best and recommended way to do the job using recent
Hi
Setup.exe seems to crash and burn rather ungracefully if setup.ini is
missing it's timestamp and version lines at the top.
Cheers
Michael
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwi
I've added a few new examples to dllhelpers. Get 'em here:
http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/V1.1/dll-stuff/
The new examples are:
(1) c_autotools: building a C DLL with autotools
(2) cxx_autotools: building a C++ DLL with autotools
These require the "devel" versions of the
Dmitry,
I'm trying to help you, but you seem insistent on just declaring Cygwin
buggy. It is not and it is possible for you to resolve the problem. I gave
you all the information you need to do so.
One last time, I'll answer your points...
At 11:46 2002-02-10, you wrote:
>Randall R Schulz <[
TEST RELEASE. PLEASE test to see that this DLL doesn't break your
existing tiff-dependent applications (without recompiling your
apps). It *should be* backwards compatible, but we've had problems
with libtiff before. I want to be sure...
Also, there are a few exported variables that are "bad"
On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:19:47PM +, Don Sharp wrote:
>
>
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 02:34:11PM -0500, David Means wrote:
>> >Try:
>> >
>> >mkdir /tmp
>> >
>> >mount /cygdrive/c/tmp /tmp
>>
>> Uh, no. There is no need for the mount command. It will royally co
Randall R Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If your XEmacs is a Windows app and not a Cygwin one, then my caveats
> apply because it is another example of a Windows process initiating a
> Cygwin program.
It's not acceptable? How then to invoke the bash itself :-)
> From the Cygwin FAQ:
> -=
Hi Corinna,
I have some free time and easy access to an NT
so I came back to security issues.
As you recall, in setegid(), setting the PrimaryGroup
in the process token isn't reliable and was #if'ed out.
Consequently non-cygwin subprocesses may create objects
with the wrong primary group.
I tri
Dmitry,
If your XEmacs is a Windows app and not a Cygwin one, then my caveats apply
because it is another example of a Windows process initiating a Cygwin program.
From the Cygwin FAQ:
-==-
How does wildcarding (globbing) work?
If the DLL thinks it was invoked from a DOS style prompt, it runs
Randall R Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I said is accurate. However, in the absence of any explicit
> mention on your part, I assumed you were issuing the commands you
> specified from a Cygwin shell. It now appears you are entering them
> into CMD.exe.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, argum
Dmitry,
What I said is accurate. However, in the absence of any explicit mention on
your part, I assumed you were issuing the commands you specified from a
Cygwin shell. It now appears you are entering them into CMD.exe.
If I'm not mistaken, arguments are processed differently in Cygwin binari
Free Post Launch!
There are a number important factors that increase the
chances of any net worker becoming successful. The
most important of which is the momentum and excitement
of actively sponsoring new members. How would you like
to know that you have an existing downline and team in
place to
Randall R Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Apart from the fact that this question involves Windows native path
> name syntax (which, by the way, works equally well with forward
> slashes), this is not Cygwin-specific.
>
>
> There are two levels or rounds of interpretation of your command
>
Dmitry,
Apart from the fact that this question involves Windows native path name
syntax (which, by the way, works equally well with forward slashes), this
is not Cygwin-specific.
There are two levels or rounds of interpretation of your command string.
The first is applied by the shell that in
This is probably a FAQ, but can you explain me why
bash -c "ls c:"
requires 4 backslashes? I can understand why 2 BS is needed, but 4 BS IMHO
are too much :-)
Hope to hear from you soon,
Dmitry
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http
Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 02:34:11PM -0500, David Means wrote:
> >Try:
> >
> >mkdir /tmp
> >
> >mount /cygdrive/c/tmp /tmp
>
> Uh, no. There is no need for the mount command. It will royally confuse
> things if you use it.
>
Why Chris? I have been using the foll
David,
Use a system mount, and all users will "see" it.
% mount --help
...
-s, --systemadd mount point to system-wide registry location
-u, --user (default) add mount point to user registry location
...
Randall Schulz
Mountain View, CA USA
At 06:22 2002-02-10, David wrote:
>Hel
Hello
> I am having a problem running perl in an at command on windows nt
> because perl says it can't find some @INC libs I added. So, I'm
> trying to run perl in a bash shell:
Thanks for the answers. The problem is that I installed cygwin
as Administrator and at commands run as SYSTEM. So,
> > > If you look a little deeper you can see, that the read() in unix domain socket
>benchmark returns only
> > 32708 bytes
> > >
> > > 1966 1981317 [main] bw_unix 1788 _read: 32708 = read (3, 0xA012048, 65536),
>errno 0
> > >
> > > while the read() in the tcp benchmark returns 65416
> > >
> >
Thanks! Now it works!
:.:: brasse
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
===
- Original Message -
From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, it looks like I'll be the only one, but this sounds to me like
an insanely
> *BAD* idea. It seems to me to be hard enough to keep the Windows
registry in
> one piece even if you don't dink with it; I shudder
29 matches
Mail list logo
