Mark,
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 11:45:20AM +1000, Mark Ord wrote:
> That's my educated WAG at what is happening. Maybe someone who is more
> familar with the code in question/cygwin1.dll code in general can look
> into whether this assessment is correct or not.
AFAICT, the problem has been correcte
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 08:38:08PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>This is what I see on Win98/Me:
>- DELETE_ON_CLOSE works if the file is not yet opened.
>- If it is opened for writing, CreateFile (DELETE_ON_CLOSE) fails and the
> file is eventually put on the delete queue, at least if it is loc
At 11:32 AM 10/7/2003 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 09:49:14AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 09:19:05AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
>>>On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 10:58:37PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 10:13:00PM
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 09:49:14AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 09:19:05AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
>>On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 10:58:37PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 10:13:00PM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
BTW, there seemed to be som
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 09:19:05AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
>Chris,
>
>On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 10:58:37PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 10:13:00PM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
>> >BTW, there seemed to be some gyration regarding this section of
>> >unlink() during tha
Chris,
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 10:58:37PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 10:13:00PM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
> >BTW, there seemed to be some gyration regarding this section of
> >unlink() during that time period:
>
> ...which might be illuminated by reading the arch
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 10:13:00PM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
>BTW, there seemed to be some gyration regarding this section of unlink()
>during that time period:
...which might be illuminated by reading the archives, I suspect...
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-s
Chris,
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 11:45:20AM +1000, Mark Ord wrote:
> The source for cygwin-1.3.22 has the line code segment
> (winsup/cygwin/syscalls.cc - unlink() ):
>
> if (GetFileAttributes (win32_name) == INVALID_FILE_ATTRIBUTES
> || (!win32_name.isremote () && wincap.has_delete_on_close ())
Jason,
Jason Tishler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do not have access to 9x so you will have to debug this further
> yourself. Can you run fetchmail under strace or gdb? If so, can you
> determine why the attempt to delete the lock file fails?
Actually, on a further look, I think I have - the
Mark,
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 01:58:39PM +1000, Mark Ord wrote:
> I then updated to cygwin-1.5.4-1, which seems to break fetchmail.
> Fetchmail complains about not being able to create the lock file, but
> I believe the issue is actually with *removing* the stale lock file
> (it doesn't happen):
cygwin-1.3.22-1 + fetchmail 6.2.2-1:
This was working fine. I then updated to cygwin-1.5.4-1, which seems to break
fetchmail. Fetchmail complains about not being able to create the lock file,
but I believe the issue is actually with *removing* the stale lock file
(it doesn't happen):
8:05pm [EMA
11 matches
Mail list logo
