Re: bash bug, setup, or permissions?

Hi, did you fix the issue? If do, please give me some suggestions since I encounter the same error recently. Thanks very much. -- Sent from: http://cygwin.1069669.n5.nabble.com/Cygwin-list-f3.html -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com

Re: bash bug?: nested "bash --login -i" doesn't run /etc/profile (still runs ~/.bash_profile)

Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: On 10/5/2010 10:12 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote: Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: On 10/4/2010 12:19 PM, Daniel Barclay wrote: ... Can anyone confirm (or "anti-confirm") this behavior?: ... When bash is started using the Cygwin shortcut (which runs cygwin.bat, which execute

Re: bash bug?: nested "bash --login -i" doesn't run /etc/profile (still runs ~/.bash_profile)

On 10/5/2010 10:12 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote: Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: On 10/4/2010 12:19 PM, Daniel Barclay wrote: I wrote: The behavior of "bash --login -i" seems to vary depending on whether it is a "root" invocation or a nested invocation of bash. This is inconsistent with the description

Re: bash bug?: nested "bash --login -i" doesn't run /etc/profile (still runs ~/.bash_profile)

Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: On 10/4/2010 12:19 PM, Daniel Barclay wrote: I wrote: The behavior of "bash --login -i" seems to vary depending on whether it is a "root" invocation or a nested invocation of bash. This is inconsistent with the description man bash, and seems to be a bug. Can anyone

Re: bash bug?: nested "bash --login -i" doesn't run /etc/profile (still runs ~/.bash_profile)

On 10/4/2010 12:19 PM, Daniel Barclay wrote: I wrote: The behavior of "bash --login -i" seems to vary depending on whether it is a "root" invocation or a nested invocation of bash. This is inconsistent with the description man bash, and seems to be a bug. Can anyone confirm (or "anti-confirm")

Re: bash bug?: nested "bash --login -i" doesn't run /etc/profile (still runs ~/.bash_profile)

I wrote: The behavior of "bash --login -i" seems to vary depending on whether it is a "root" invocation or a nested invocation of bash. This is inconsistent with the description man bash, and seems to be a bug. Can anyone confirm (or "anti-confirm") this behavior?: Details: When bash is st

bash bug?: nested "bash --login -i" doesn't run /etc/profile (still runs ~/.bash_profile)

The behavior of "bash --login -i" seems to vary depending on whether it is a "root" invocation or a nested invocation of bash. This is inconsistent with the description man bash, and seems to be a bug. Details: When bash is started using the Cygwin shortcut (which runs cygwin.bat, which execu

second copy of bash bug?

Hello, I ran a second copy of bash (version 3.2.49-23) and then I ran "tail -f somefile" in the first copy and "tail -f someotherfile" in the second copy. Then I hit ctrl-c in the second copy and then I hit ctrl-c in the first copy and, I could not see anything that I typed in the second copy.

Re: bash bug, setup, or permissions?

Jerry DeLisle wrote: While attempting to run the gcc testsuite today I am getting this error. Bash appears to then lock up. If I attempt to close the terminal window, I get a windows error dialog about failing to respond. If I select to end the hung task, it terminates and the bash command pr

bash bug, setup, or permissions?

While attempting to run the gcc testsuite today I am getting this error. Bash appears to then lock up. If I attempt to close the terminal window, I get a windows error dialog about failing to respond. If I select to end the hung task, it terminates and the bash command prompt comes back. An

Bash bug

I tested this over and over. I think it's a 'nasty' bug here. #!/bin/bash ( # sleep 1# or whatever not very quick command! set -m; sleep 10 & # or whatever command takes some time to complete set +m; pid=$! ( sleep 1; kill -- -$pid ) & wait $pid ) without sleep 1 commented you

Re: bash bug report? Minor border case:

On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 02:05:25PM -0800, Michael Pierce wrote: >I wish the developers would try to remember, not everyone is a >developer, in fact most are just users, cut some slack! Step 1: Person posts to wrong list. Step 2: Person is apprised of that fact by cygwin mailing list notable. Ste

Re: bash bug report? Minor border case:

On 31 Mar 2003, Michael Pierce wrote: > On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 13:01, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 12:42:03PM -0800, linda w (cyg) wrote: > > >Agreed. Perhaps the naming should be a bit more evident. > > > > Or, perhaps you should school yourself to do some research before

Re: bash bug report? Minor border case:

On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 13:01, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 12:42:03PM -0800, linda w (cyg) wrote: > >Agreed. Perhaps the naming should be a bit more evident. > > Or, perhaps you should school yourself to do some research before you > start blindly sending email. At the ver

Re: bash bug report? Minor border case:

On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 05:39:50PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: >>>Nothing more intelligent that a self documenting name. :-) >> >>app means 'application packaging problems'. Gerrit > >*LOL* Bravo, Gerrit! Chris, is this one a candidate for the OLOC

Re: bash bug report? Minor border case:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: > Hallo linda, > > > Nothing more intelligent that a self documenting name. :-) > > app means 'application packaging problems'. > Gerrit *LOL* Bravo, Gerrit! Chris, is this one a candidate for the OLOCA? ;-) Igor --

Re: bash bug report? Minor border case:

Hallo linda, > Nothing more intelligent that a self documenting name. :-) app means 'application packaging problems'. Gerrit -- =^..^= -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.co

Re: bash bug report? Minor border case:

On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 12:42:03PM -0800, linda w (cyg) wrote: >Agreed. Perhaps the naming should be a bit more evident. Or, perhaps you should school yourself to do some research before you start blindly sending email. At the very least you could do some research before responding to valid obse

Re: bash bug report? Minor border case:

> Agreed. Perhaps the naming should be a bit more evident. > I don't reread the list purpose everytime I do a post. Cygwin-packaging or cygwin-app-packag[e/ing] would be a bit more self- > documenting. Nothing more intelligent that a self documenting > name. :-) > -linda Maybe. But that documen

RE: bash bug report? Minor border case:

Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Igor Pechtchanski > Sent: Sun, Mar 30, 2003 12:26p > To: linda w (cyg) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: bash bug report? Minor border case: > > > Linda, > > I shan't delve into the

RE: bash bug report? Minor border case:

- > > From: Igor Pechtchanski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sat, Mar 29, 2003 5:22p > > To: linda w (cyg) > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: bash bug report? Minor border case: > > > > Linda, > > > > According to

Re: bash bug report? Minor border case:

* linda w (cyg) (03-03-30 19:56 +0100) Did you actually read what Igor Pechtchanski wrote? ,--- | > Linda, | > | > According to , this is | > off-topic for the list. Please | > remove from further replies. `--- Anyhow, there is no sense in quoting

RE: bash bug report? Minor border case:

> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: bash bug report? Minor border case: > > > Linda, > > According to <http://cygwin.com/lists.html#available-lists>, this is > off-topic for the list. Please remove > from further replies. > Igor > >

Re: bash bug report? Minor border case:

Linda, According to , this is off-topic for the list. Please remove from further replies. Igor On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, linda w (cyg) wrote: > Valid filename created by app: > \Documents and Settings\law\My > Documents\win\registry2\regtweaks\

bash bug report? Minor border case:

Valid filename created by app: \Documents and Settings\law\My Documents\win\registry2\regtweaks\Kellys_XP_Tweaks\download.com.com\clear\redx\c.gif-ts=-104976066&edId=3&prtnr=CNET+Networks,+Inc.& oid=3000-2094-10126096&ptId=3000&onId=2094&sId=4&asId=10126096&pId=10126096&asType=Product exactly 255

Re: readline Bug! ;-) [was: Bash Bug! (was: Bug in rxvt 2.7.2 ...)]

Thomas, On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 02:30:46PM +0200, Thomas Mellman wrote: > WRT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > I have been experiencing similar problems since upgrading to bash > > 2.05b-2 and libreadline5 4.3-1. My typical problem is that the "c" > > command as in "cw" (i.e., change word) would stop wo

Re: readline Bug! ;-) [was: Bash Bug! (was: Bug in rxvt 2.7.2 ...)]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Thomas Mellman wrote: > WRT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > > I have been experiencing similar problems since upgrading to bash > > 2.05b-2 and libreadline5 4.3-1. My typical problem is that the "c" > > command as in "cw" (i.e., change word) would stop working, but "dw" > > (i.e.,

Re: readline Bug! ;-) [was: Bash Bug! (was: Bug in rxvt 2.7.2 ...)]

WRT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > I have been experiencing similar problems since upgrading to bash > 2.05b-2 and libreadline5 4.3-1. My typical problem is that the "c" > command as in "cw" (i.e., change word) would stop working, but "dw" > (i.e., delete word) followed by "i" (i.e., insert) was fine.

Re: [PATCH] Re: readline Bug! ;-) [was: Bash Bug! (was: Bug in rxvt2.7.2 ...)]

On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 11:12:27PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > >On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 10:46:23PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > >> >Well, I guess I've figured this one out... The bug

Re: [PATCH] Re: readline Bug! ;-) [was: Bash Bug! (was: Bug in rxvt 2.7.2 ...)]

On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 11:12:27PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 10:46:23PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >> >Well, I guess I've figured this one out... The bug was in readline-4.3. >> >I'm attaching patches for both

Re: [PATCH] Re: readline Bug! ;-) [was: Bash Bug! (was: Bug in rxvt2.7.2 ...)]

On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 10:46:23PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > >Well, I guess I've figured this one out... The bug was in readline-4.3. > >I'm attaching patches for both bash-2.05b-5 and readline-4.3-1 (nearly > >identical). There is a *long

Re: [PATCH] Re: readline Bug! ;-) [was: Bash Bug! (was: Bug in rxvt 2.7.2 ...)]

On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 10:46:23PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >Well, I guess I've figured this one out... The bug was in readline-4.3. >I'm attaching patches for both bash-2.05b-5 and readline-4.3-1 (nearly >identical). There is a *long* description of the bug and the fix below >for those w

[PATCH] Re: readline Bug! ;-) [was: Bash Bug! (was: Bug in rxvt2.7.2 ...)]

Well, I guess I've figured this one out... The bug was in readline-4.3. I'm attaching patches for both bash-2.05b-5 and readline-4.3-1 (nearly identical). There is a *long* description of the bug and the fix below for those who are interested, feel free to skip. Igor On Wed, 2 Oct 2002,

Re: readline Bug! ;-) [was: Bash Bug! (was: Bug in rxvt 2.7.2 ...)]

Thomas, On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 11:20:35AM +0200, Thomas Mellman wrote: > I haven't been able to isolate it any further, so I haven't said > anything yet, but since this has come up, and seems to be in roughly > the same place, it seems to me it's worth bringing up. If anyone else > has observed

readline Bug! ;-) [was: Bash Bug! (was: Bug in rxvt 2.7.2 ...)]

WRT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I wonder if this has anything to do with a readline bug I've been observing for awhile: in VI mode, after a while of use, suddenly readline stops understanding certain commands (e.g. "r"). They just stop being functional, or switch to a right-char movement. Just someti

readline Bug! ;-) [was: Bash Bug! (was: Bug in rxvt 2.7.2 ...)]

Hey, as long as we're shifting the blame, let's shift it correctly ;-) Details below... On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Jelks Cabaniss wrote: > Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > > > > As for the Ctrl-Left, this is something odd in bash. I > > > > can get the same behavior in a command window running bash, > > >

Bash Bug! (was: Bug in rxvt 2.7.2 ...)

Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > > As for the Ctrl-Left, this is something odd in bash. I > > > can get the same behavior in a command window running bash, > > > or even by typing Esc O c. Bash running on Linux does not > > > seem to have this problem. I wrote, speaking about CTRL+Left: > > He

Re: Bash bug? - piped loops using builtin echo and stdout

Larry, Stuart, I did not look closely enough at the output when I ran my test. I was expecting some more dramatic failure, I guess. I do _not_ see proper alternation of "foo" and "bar." The transpositions occur in iterations 33 45 51 54 64 69 74 79 83 98 105 110 114 122 140 147 154 163 174 19

Re: Bash bug? - piped loops using builtin echo and stdout

I can reproduce Stuart's problem on W2K. I'm on a uni-processor machine. I've only tried it interactively. Removing the pipe from the process makes "foo" and "bar" alternate as expected. With the pipe the result is: >while( true ); do echo foo; /bin/echo bar; done | cat foo bar foo bar foo b

Re: Bash bug? - piped loops using builtin echo and stdout

Stuart, I have the same installation you report (Win2K) and cannot reproduce your problem. Hundreds of iterations work just fine. I do notice that on my two-CPU system this loop will consume almost 90% of the available CPU cycles and about 3/4 of that is kernel mode (as displayed by the "Perf

Bash bug? - piped loops using builtin echo and stdout

With bash, is the behaviour of "while( true ); do echo foo; /bin/echo bar; done | cat" defined? Is it reasonable for me to expect to see "foo", "bar", "foo", "bar", and so on? With an interactive bash, this isn't what happens when I actually type the command in (i.e. sourcing or executing a scr