Re: Snapshot and CD compatibility problems

[Steve Jorgensen <steve at khoral dot com>]

Chris Faylor wrote
>> On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 05:18:41PM -0600, Steve Jorgensen wrote:
>> >Ok, so I switched to the 10/25/1999 cygwin dll, to get fixes for the
>> >unlink and perl problem.  However, now it really messes up the file
>> >permissions on any file I write to (making access return -1 when it
>> >checks for write access the next time).  Many programs I run kind of
>> >hang for a while before actually beginning to run.  Also, ls reports
>> >different values permissions on the snapshot.  For the cygwin1.dll from
>> >the CD, it reports non-executable files as mode 644.  With the
>> >10/25/1999 snapshot, it reports 777 on all files.
>> 
>> I think I will quit my job and devote the rest of my life to answering
>> this question.
	:)
>> 
>> If the DLL is named cygwin1.dll, it is compatible with any program linked
>> earlier than the DLL.  It is not necessarily compatible with object files
>> or libraries.
	So, your saying after I change the dll I should recompile the
	software I'm trying to port?
>> 
>> The problem you are seeing is probably due to the fact that CYGWIN=ntsec
>> is on by default.  This requires you to have a valid /etc/passwd and
>> /etc/group.  Set the environment variable CYGWIN=nontsec to avoid this.
	Well, I created a /etc/passwd and /etc/group.  I guess my
	confuse lies in that all I did was change the DLL, I didn't mess
	with the CYGWIN variable or any of the other cygwin settings/config
	files.  Does the CD cygwin1.dll have different defaults than
	the snapshot?  It could be that I used the wrong option on 
	the creation of the passwd and group, the CD version of the DLL
	didn't really care either way.
>> 
>> I don't know about the pause, though.  I don't see that here.  Possibly
>> it is due to ntsec searching a Windows domain.
>> 
>> >Is it just incompatible to use snapshot dll's with the cygwin CD
>> >binaries?  Also, it doesn't look like the gcc compiler that comes with
>> >the CD is the same as the one all the web pages recommends (2.9 vs
>> >2.95).  Is there a reason why 2.95 wasn't put on the CD?  Should I move
>> >to that compiler?
>> 
>> We included the CodeFusion version of the compiler which has additional
>> optimizations for Pentium IIs.  It should produce smaller, faster code.

	I know, I just wanted to make sure it is compatible with
	the 2.95 compiler.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Jorgensen      steve@khoral.com	    steve@haunt.com
------------------------------+----------------------------
Khoral Research Inc.          | PHONE: (505) 837-6500
6200 Uptown Blvd, Suite 200   | FAX:   (505) 881-3842
Albuquerque, NM 87110         | URL: http://www.khoral.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com