This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Crontab problems
- From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 19:55:36 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: Crontab problems
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On Sat, 14 Sep 2002, Raphael wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2002 at 01:00:20PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Raphael wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 05:53:24PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > --- Raphael <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi guys/girls~,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm having a bit of a problem with my windows based editor. Using
> > > > > > it with
> > > > > > Pine or Mutt is not problem. Using it with Crontab -e gives a
> > > > > > sharing
> > > > > > violation error when I want to save the new file.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is this a crontab problem?
> > > > >
> > > > > Use vi.exe
> > > >
> > > > Most windows editors adopt a remove-and-recreate (or rename-and-recreate)
> > > > policy. This basically means that they will try to remove or rename the
> > > > crontab-created file (which will fail, silently), and then create that
> > > > file over (which will fail since crontab has it open). This is where your
> > > > sharing violation comes from.
> > >
> > > Ok, I can understand that explenation.
> > >
> > > > I've verified this with notepad and
> > > > editpad, but I'm sure most of the others will behave similarly. Thus,
> > > > looks like using a cygwin-based editor is your only option, unless you can
> > > > find a windows one that writes the files in-place. If this creates one
> > > > more convert for the vi camp, all the better. ;-)
> > >
> > > Don't think so, why should Cron not be able to act like Pine or Mutt. I
> > > guess the latter start opening the file in shared mode?
> > I don't know about mutt, but pine, IIRC, does not keep the file open while
> > it's being edited by an external editor. It re-opens the file afterwards,
> > which is why it doesn't care whether it's the same file, or a newly
> > created one.
> Hi Igor,
> But do you have any idea why Cron shouldn't be able to act the same?
Quoting straight from the crontab-3.0.1-7 source (crontab.c:418):
/* we still have the file open. editors will generally rewrite the
* original file rather than renaming/unlinking it and starting a
* new one; even backup files are supposed to be made by copying
* rather than by renaming. if some editor does not support this,
* then don't use it. the security problems are more severe if we
* close and reopen the file around the edit.
Hope this answers your question. By the way, the patch to close the file
and re-open it is trivial, and is left as an exercise for the reader.
Boy, I get to quote the source a lot these days... Not that I'm
complaining or anything... :-D
|\ _,,,---,,_ firstname.lastname@example.org
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ email@example.com
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
It took the computational power of three Commodore 64s to fly to the moon.
It takes a 486 to run Windows 95. Something is wrong here. -- SC sig file
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html