Re: Exim 4.52 Cygwin 1.5.8 SPA authentication failures warnings in Reject Log

Hi, On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 08:26:30PM -0500, Herb Martin wrote: > Would someone running Exim 4.50+ (especially 4.52) on CygWin and using > Microsoft Outlook or Outlook Express with SPA (NTLM) authentication to a > flat file please search your Exim reject log for a warning of the following > type

Exim 4.52 Cygwin 1.5.8 SPA authentication failures warnings in Reject Log

Would someone running Exim 4.50+ (especially 4.52) on CygWin and using Microsoft Outlook or Outlook Express with SPA (NTLM) authentication to a flat file please search your Exim reject log for a warning of the following type (all one line): 2005-08-23 18:36:53 spa authenticator failed for cpe-70-1

RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 -- Apropos still troublesome

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Herb Martin wrote: > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Blake . Thanks. > man hash and info hash are both worthless (except to admit that "hash" > is exists, i.e., is a built-in. "type hash" should say that it's a built

RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Herb Martin wrote: > > > cygcheck can show a version when the program is not > > > even there (either not installed or missing) > > > > Why do you say that the Cygwin man was not installed? From > > everything you've posted it was installed just fine,

RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 -- Apropos still troublesome

Original Message >From: Herb Martin >Sent: 15 August 2005 16:03 >>> man hash and info hash are both worthless (except to admit that "hash" >>> is exists, i.e., is a built-in. >> >> Yes, bash documentation is not the best packaged (I like the >> Solaris man pages for shell builtins much b

RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 -- Apropos still troublesome

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Blake > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 10:01 AM > To: Herb Martin; cygwin@cygwin.com > Subject: RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 > -- Apropos still troubl

Re: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 -- Apropos still troublesome

On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 03:00:49PM +, Eric Blake wrote: > > There is a man directory in /usr/bin, i.e., /usr/bin/man -- > > with man.exe being the program, while manpath gives: > > This sentence was confusing. Are you telling me that > /usr/bin/man exists and is a directory (does it have norm

RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 -- Apropos still troublesome

> From: Eric Blake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: Herb Martin; cygwin@cygwin.com > > man hash and info hash are both worthless (except to admit > that "hash" > > is exists, i.e., is a built-in. > > Yes, bash documentation is not the best packaged (I like the > Solaris man pages for shell bui

RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 -- Apropos still troublesome

> > man hash and info hash are both worthless (except to > admit that "hash" is exists, i.e., is a built-in. Yes, bash documentation is not the best packaged (I like the Solaris man pages for shell builtins much better). What `man hash' is trying to tell you to do is run `man bash', then search

RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 -- Apropos still troublesome

> There is a man directory in /usr/bin, i.e., /usr/bin/man -- > with man.exe being the program, while manpath gives: This sentence was confusing. Are you telling me that /usr/bin/man exists and is a directory (does it have normal subdirectories like man1?), and that /usr/bin/man.exe exists and is

RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 -- Apropos still troublesome

> On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:11:09AM -0500, Herb Martin wrote: > > There is a man directory in /usr/bin, i.e., /usr/bin/man -- with > > man.exe being the program, while manpath gives: > > What created that directory? Having it is a really bad idea, > and probably the source of all your troubles

Re: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 -- Apropos still troublesome

On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:11:09AM -0500, Herb Martin wrote: > There is a man directory in /usr/bin, i.e., /usr/bin/man -- > with man.exe being the program, while manpath gives: What created that directory? Having it is a really bad idea, and probably the source of all your troubles. -- Unsubscr

RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 -- Apropos still troublesome

> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Blake > According to Herb Martin on 8/14/2005 10:22 PM: > > > > cygwin (like Linux apparently) keeps a database of > > programs and so deleting an incorrect program > > on the path may leave the OS complaining about > >

Re: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Herb Martin on 8/14/2005 10:22 PM: > > cygwin (like Linux apparently) keeps a database of > programs and so deleting an incorrect program > on the path may leave the OS complaining about >

RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8

> > cygcheck can show a version when the program is not > > even there (either not installed or missing) > > Why do you say that the Cygwin man was not installed? From > everything you've posted it was installed just fine, but your > other version of man was found first

Re: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8

Herb Martin wrote: > cygcheck can show a version when the program is not > even there (either not installed or missing) Why do you say that the Cygwin man was not installed? From everything you've posted it was installed just fine, but your other version of man was found

RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8

seem to have a "-t" switch or fix the problem. -- Herb Martin > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Dessent > Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 9:49 PM > To: cygwin@cygwin.com > Subject: Re: Another

Re: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8

Herb Martin wrote: > Arggh! That's 90% of the answer -- the one that was > running was from my NT native "unix" tools because the > "real" one is missing. For future reference, no package that you install with setup.exe should ever put anything under /usr/local. If you find a configuration file

RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8

> -Original Message- > From: Gerrit P. Haase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 2:30 PM > To: Herb Martin > Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com > Subject: Re: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 > > Herb Martin wrote: > > > 'in

Re: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8

Herb Martin wrote: 'info' works, 'man' fails with this error: $ man cat /usr/local/lib/man.config: No such file or directory Warning: cannot open configuration file /usr/local/lib/man.config No manual entry for cat `which man`? Gerrit -- =^..^= -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/m

Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8

'info' works, 'man' fails with this error: $ man cat /usr/local/lib/man.config: No such file or directory Warning: cannot open configuration file /usr/local/lib/man.config No manual entry for cat I have tried figuring out man.config with no success (*see below). Cygwin DLL version info: DLL ver

Another success report (was: RE: Crashes with new cygwin-1.5.8-1 on XP)

> From: Brian Keener > > Barry (NIH/NIAID) Buchbinder wrote: > > It works! bash, cygpath, and gdb all run. > > > > Thanks for the quick turn-around. > > > > Tried the snapshot on W2k and ditto for me. Gdb and insight > working - bash was > working anyways. > > Excellent - nice job. emac

Problems with fflush() under Cygwin 1.5.8 ...

Hi I am currently porting process communication middleware (developed under LINUX) to Cygwin. I have managed to find workarounds for missing (mkfifo -- are named pipes *ever* going to be available under Cygwin?) but problems still remain. Major problem is that fflush() does not appear to flush b

Building Apache w/ SSL under Cygwin 1.5.8... dllwrap problem?

Apache alone builds find, but with SSL I get lots of undefined symbols involving dllwrap. Is there a tool to help me track down where these symbols might be defined? What is dllwrap trying to do? I'm using Apachetoolbox 1.5.69 to build under 1.5.8 with SSL support. Here is the output... ATB1.5.69

Re: Crashes with new cygwin-1.5.8-1 on XP

Barry (NIH/NIAID) Buchbinder wrote: > It works! bash, cygpath, and gdb all run. > > Thanks for the quick turn-around. > Tried the snapshot on W2k and ditto for me. Gdb and insight working - bash was working anyways. Excellent - nice job. -- Brian Keener [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Unsubscribe in

RE: Crashes with new cygwin-1.5.8-1 on XP

It works! bash, cygpath, and gdb all run. Thanks for the quick turn-around. - Barry -Original Message- From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 3:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Crashes with new cygwin-1.5.8-1 on XP On Thu, Mar 18

Re: Crashes with new cygwin-1.5.8-1 on XP

On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 03:17:27PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >I vaguely recall this being posted already at some point, but search the >registry for 'ScanLocked', and change that value to 0. Also search for >'RealTimeScan/*-L' (you can use a 'find /proc/registry -path >"RealTimeScan/*-L"') a

RE: Crashes with new cygwin-1.5.8-1 on XP

to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:33 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Crashes with new cygwin-1.5.8-1 on XP > > > > This is on XP, not on Win 2K? > > Missed it in the subject, no less. Ouch. > > Weird, though - previous reporters wer

RE: Crashes with new cygwin-1.5.8-1 on XP

rebaseall didn't help me, either. -Original Message- From: Richard Campbell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Crashes with new cygwin-1.5.8-1 on XP It didn't help me any. Probably can't hurt, though.

RE: Crashes with new cygwin-1.5.8-1 on XP

Also Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edition. I don't have the permissions to turn it off. -Original Message- From: Richard Campbell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Crashes with new cygwin-1.5.8-1 on XP > This

RE: Should setup.ini say prev to cygwin 1.5.8 is 1.5.5

ubject: RE: Should setup.ini say prev to cygwin 1.5.8 is 1.5.5 If you've installed it before, you might still have 1.5.7 in your package cache. Simply select "Install from local directory", and you should be able to cycle to 1.5.7... Igor On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Buchbinder, Bar

Re: Crashes with new cygwin-1.5.8-1 on XP

Hi, I had these problems also, I installed all Windows XP patches (yes, Windows patches, dont laugh !) and voila, everything works again. If someone has an explanantion, he is welcome... "Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On XP, starting

RE: Should setup.ini say prev to cygwin 1.5.8 is 1.5.5

- > From: Larry Hall > Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 9:58 AM > To: Brian Keener; cygwincygwincom > Subject: Re: Should setup.ini say prev to cygwin 1.5.8 is 1.5.5 > > > At 06:39 PM 3/17/2004, you wrote: > >Richard Campbell wrote: > >> >>d:\cygwin\bin\gdb.exe (1616

RE: Crashes with new cygwin-1.5.8-1 on XP

> This is on XP, not on Win 2K? Missed it in the subject, no less. Ouch. Weird, though - previous reporters were all 2K. What antivirus are you using? I'm using Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edition, although I am also using that on machines that don't have this problem on XP... -Richard Cam

RE: Should setup.ini say prev to cygwin 1.5.8 is 1.5.5

] On Behalf Of Larry Hall Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 9:58 AM To: Brian Keener; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Should setup.ini say prev to cygwin 1.5.8 is 1.5.5 At 06:39 PM 3/17/2004, you wrote: >Richard Campbell wrote: >> >>d:\cygwin\bin\gdb.exe (1616): *** m.AllocationBase 0x0

RE: Crashes with new cygwin-1.5.8-1 on XP

It didn't help me any. Probably can't hurt, though. >Does running 'rebaseall' help? > Igor >On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) wrote: > >> I installed gdb but cannot run it under 1.5.8-1. >> >> c:\cygwin\bin> gdb >> 3 [main] ? 2264 init_cheap: Couldn't reserve space f

RE: Crashes with new cygwin-1.5.8-1 on XP

> > -Original Message- > From: Richard Campbell [mailto:richardcampbellair2webcom] > Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:27 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Crashes with new cygwin-1.5.8-1 on XP > > > c:\cygwin\bin> bash > 6 [main] ? 3816 init_

RE: Crashes with new cygwin-1.5.8-1 on XP

gine that our support people will do any updates at my request. Also, I cannot turn off any antivirus -Original Message- From: Richard Campbell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Crashes with new cygwin-1.5.8-1 on XP c:\cy

Re: Crashes with new cygwin-1.5.8-1 on XP

On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 10:14:38AM -0500, Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) wrote: >On XP, starting from a cmd.exe prompt: > >c:\cygwin\bin> bash > 6 [main] ? 3816 init_cheap: Couldn't reserve space for cygwin's heap, >Win32 error 487 >c:\cygwin\bin\bash.exe (3816): *** AllocationBase 0x0, BaseAdd

RE: Crashes with new cygwin-1.5.8-1 on XP

c:\cygwin\bin> bash 6 [main] ? 3816 init_cheap: Couldn't reserve space for cygwin's heap, Win32 error 487 c:\cygwin\bin\bash.exe (3816): *** AllocationBase 0x0, BaseAddress 0x616E, RegionSize 0x1AA, State 0x1 For me it was XWin and gdb. Actually, though, if you can run gdb, you

Crashes with new cygwin-1.5.8-1 on XP

On XP, starting from a cmd.exe prompt: c:\cygwin\bin> bash 6 [main] ? 3816 init_cheap: Couldn't reserve space for cygwin's heap, Win32 error 487 c:\cygwin\bin\bash.exe (3816): *** AllocationBase 0x0, BaseAddress 0x616E, RegionSize 0x1AA, State 0x1 c:\cygwin\bin> cygpath 3

Re: Should setup.ini say prev to cygwin 1.5.8 is 1.5.5

ml >> >> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-02/msg01382.html >> >Thanks both of you for the pointer. I had not as yet dug into the error but had >thought that by mentioning I might get a point but I also see that in so doing I >clouded the issue - the true message was the s

Re: Should setup.ini say prev to cygwin 1.5.8 is 1.5.5

82.html > Thanks both of you for the pointer. I had not as yet dug into the error but had thought that by mentioning I might get a point but I also see that in so doing I clouded the issue - the true message was the subject: Should the previous version of cygwin 1.5.8 be 1.5.5 or 1.5.7 as

RE: Should setup.ini say prev to cygwin 1.5.8 is 1.5.5

Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 03:33:35PM -0500, Brian Keener wrote: >>Just upgraded to 1.5.8 on my W2k laptop and for some strange reason ( I was thinking >>graphics) and tried to run insight and then just plain old gdb and received the >>following error for either (posting h

Re: Should setup.ini say prev to cygwin 1.5.8 is 1.5.5

On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 03:33:35PM -0500, Brian Keener wrote: >Just upgraded to 1.5.8 on my W2k laptop and for some strange reason ( I was thinking >graphics) and tried to run insight and then just plain old gdb and received the >following error for either (posting here purely for reference in ca

Heads-up: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: cygwin-1.5.8-1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Christopher Faylor wrote: | I've made a new version of the Cygwin DLL and associated utilities | available for download. As usual, a list of what has changed is below. Thanks!! | - No longer includes newlib's /usr/include/iconv.h . (Christopher Faylo

Should setup.ini say prev to cygwin 1.5.8 is 1.5.5

Just upgraded to 1.5.8 on my W2k laptop and for some strange reason ( I was thinking graphics) and tried to run insight and then just plain old gdb and received the following error for either (posting here purely for reference in case it is important): ~ $ gdb 5 [main] ? 1616 cygheap_fixup

[ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: cygwin-1.5.8-1

I've made a new version of the Cygwin DLL and associated utilities available for download. As usual, a list of what has changed is below. To update your installation, click on the "Install Cygwin now" link on the http://cygwin.com/ web page. This downloads setup.exe to your system. Then, run se

Re: Cygwin 1.5.8

On Feb 16 17:50, utomo wrote: > Hi, > > As I know many people having problems with current 1.5.7 version or > 1.5.6. > Is there any estimation schedule for cygwin 1.5.8 ? It's scheduled for 2004. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regard

RE: Cygwin 1.5.8

Kelly -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of utomo Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 5:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cygwin 1.5.8 Hi, As I know many people having problems with current 1.5.7 version or 1.5.6. Is there any estimation schedul

Cygwin 1.5.8

Hi, As I know many people having problems with current 1.5.7 version or 1.5.6. Is there any estimation schedule for cygwin 1.5.8 ? Thanks, Utomo -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation