tar deletes .exe files on extraction

2009-08-07 Thread Steven Hartland
If you extract a tar.gz file with an executable file and an excitable file of the same name but with the .exe extension on extract the .exe file is inexplicably deleted. e.g. tar -xvzf test.tar.gz mydir/myexe.exe mydir/myexe ls myddir myexe rm -rf mydir; tar -xvzf test.tar.gz; mydir/myexe.exe m

Re: CYGWIN Installation Issues

2009-08-07 Thread Steven Julian
Thanks for the response. I tried adding c:\cygwin\bin\ to the path, with the same results as before, so I checked the /etc/postinstall/ directory as you mentioned. The files in there all end in .sh.done except for two .tgz files (gcc-mingw-core and gcc-mingw-g++). I ran the installer from the de

Re: CYGWIN Installation Issues

2009-08-07 Thread Larry Hall (Cygwin)
On 08/07/2009 01:12 PM, Steven Julian wrote: Oops...didn't realize gmail was sending in rich text...that might explain why I never got a reply, eh? Yeah, could be. ;-) I don't see allot here, other than the path is wrong, which likely leads to many of your other troubles. Check your '/etc/pos

Re: CYGWIN Installation Issues

2009-08-07 Thread Steven Julian
Oops...didn't realize gmail was sending in rich text...that might explain why I never got a reply, eh? Here it is again On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Steven Julian wrote: > OK, upon doing more testing, and after several uninstalls/reinstalls, I > finally got cygcheck to run.  Output is att

[ANNOUNCEMENT] [1.7] Updated: libsigsegv{1}-2.6+-1

2009-08-07 Thread Reini Urban
I've promoted the experimental libsigsegv 2.6+-1 to current. I need it for the upcoming clisp release, though I got no feedback yet upstream if Eric' fixes will be eventually in the next release 2.7. Eric Blake fixed the SEH chain corruption in libsigsegv for 2.6+. The DLL revision is bumped from

Re: Can't execute scripts from a samba share with 1.7

2009-08-07 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Aug 6 15:38, Nahor wrote: > Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: >> On 08/06/2009 05:25 PM, Nahor wrote: >>> Corinna Vinschen wrote: Note that it doesn't do a simple POSIX permission bit check, rather it calls an OS function asking "does *this* account have the right to execute *that* fil