[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] building arch on cygwin (was: darcs vs tla)

From: John A Meinel
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] building arch on cygwin (was: darcs vs tla)
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:22:48 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103)

Bill Page wrote:
John A Meinel, et al.

Following the recipe below I did successfully build tla on
Cygwin from the listed archives as of 30 November, but in
addition to the unit-unidata test failure below, I am seeing
numerous other test failures:

In hackerlab/tests/fs-tests/

In tla/tests/

  Setting my-id: Jane Doe <address@hidden>
  mkdir: cannot create directory `+': File exists

This is actually a bug in the scripts themselves. It turns out that cygwin's /bin/sh is actually ash, not bash. So it doesn't support the syntax of $(($x + 1)) . Instead of giving you 2 it gives 1 + 1. My workaround was to close all cygwin shells, and then delete c:\cygwin\bin\sh.exe and copy c:\cygwin\bash.exe to sh.exe.

The other workaround would be to figure out how to do addition in pure POSIX shell, or go around and make sure all the scripts reference /bin/bash instead of /bin/sh.

This should probably be registered as a bug, but I'm not sure what the "correct" solution is.

(At this point I stopped trying to continue running the tests
by commenting out failures.)

In spite of these test failures, tla does seem to be quite
functional in my simple manual tests. Are the test failures
above special cases that do not often occur in practice?
Should I just ignore these failures? Or is there work in
progress to address them?

It's a bug in the script, not in the binary.

Also, I notice that the reference to a "binary version available
at"; at
is apparently out of date since I no longer find the referenced
files there.  If I recall correctly, I did download an executable
cygwin tla from that location on 19 November. I have been using
it successfully from the last 10 days. Is a new binary now
available somewhere else?

I forgot to update the wiki. The correct page is:

There should be the latest version of the binary there. I'm using it myself, so I'm pretty sure it is good.

Bill Page.

Thanks for evaluating it. Sorry all the ends aren't as polished as they could be, if you have any suggestions I'm listening. (Especially if the suggestions come in patch form :)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]