Cygwin error regarding profile.global

[beartiger]

This post is simply to document the solution to a cygwin error so that
those who have the same issue can find the solution when they do a
Google Groups search. Please do not flame me for posting this here.
If you object to the presence of this post here, the best thing you can
do at this point is ignore it, and it will soon drop off your radar.

I've installed cygwin on various machines over the years and never
gotten this error until today when I tried installing cygwin on a new
machine. The error is:

"bash: can't find configuration file
/usr/local/etc/profile.global"

There is no such configuration file in cygwin, and this error is
misleading. If you receive this error it means that your HOME system
variable is not set. This procedure describes setting the HOME
variable on an XP machine.

1. Launch the Control Panel:

Go to Start | Settings | Control Panel.

2. Launch the System Properties dialog from the Control Panel.

Category view:
Click "Performance and Maintenence", then "See basic information about
your computer".

Classic view:
Double click the System icon.

3. Set the HOME variable.

On the System Properties dialog, click the Advanced tab. Then click
the Environment Variables button to launch the Environment Variables
dialog.

Under System variables, click the New button. Next to Variable name,
enter HOME. Next to Variable value, enter a path to the folder you
wish to set as your home directory. For example:

C:\Documents and Settings\<user_name>\My Documents\cygwin_home

Click OK to dismiss the Environment Variables dialog and then OK to
dismiss System Properties dialog.

4. Rerun Cygwin.



Best regards,
John

 

[beartiger]

For some reason, a carriage return crept into that error message. Here
it is:

"bash: can't find configuration file /usr/local/etc/profile.global"

 

[anno4000]

This post is simply to document the solution to a cygwin error so that
those who have the same issue can find the solution when they do a
Google Groups search. Please do not flame me for posting this here.

What makes you immune? Your posting is blatantly off topic.

Anno

 

[beartiger]

Wha<snip>

Moron.


J

 

[David Squire]

Moron.

Tsk. Talking to yourself again.

 

[Matt Garrish]

Moron.

You got the order of your response all wrong. The "moron" is you, or if
you disagree would you please care to explain why you posted such a
riculously off-topic message to a perl group? No one here cares about
your cygwin configuration problems, and no one searching for an answer
to the same problem is likely to search in comp.lang.perl.misc either.
Or did it make you feel like a big man to post to usenet?

Matt

 

[beartiger]

You got the order of yo<snip>

**** you.


J

 

[beartiger]

You got the order of your respon<snip>

Take a walk toward the closest shore and keep going until your hat
floats.


J

 

[beartiger]

Tsk. T<snip>

You post OT because you hate it when people post OT. You could have
let this thread drop off the current list. But no, you perpetuated it.
You and your ilk are properly described as morons.


J

 

[Jürgen Exner]

**** you.

***PLONK***

 

[Tad McClellan]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:


***PLONK***

I did that almost a year ago.

 

[Matt Garrish]

Take a walk toward the closest shore and keep going until your hat
floats.

Yes, your wit is as keen as your understanding of cygwin. That is what
you were trying to prove with thise post, correct?

Matt

 

[beartiger]

Yes, your wit is as ke<snip>

Keep posting OT, you hypocritical moron.


J

 

[Matt Garrish]

Keep posting OT, you hypocritical moron.

Ooh, there's the M word again. Your expansive vocabulary well exhibits
your deep intellect.

Matt

 

[beartiger]

Matt Garrish wrote:

Ooh, there's the M word again. Your expansive vocabulary well exhibits
your deep intellect.

Did you happen to notice that you yourself used the word, just three
posts ago?

The "moron" is you.
--Matt Garrish

And did you happen to notice that, despite your assertion that posting
OT is "stupid", you've now done it repeatedly?

Yes, I too am beginning to think that "moron" is a particularly
inarticulate way to describe you.

Now, you were saying....?


J

 

[Matt Garrish]

Matt Garrish wrote:


Did you happen to notice that you yourself used the word, just three
posts ago?

The "moron" is you.
--Matt Garrish

And did you happen to notice that, despite your assertion that posting
OT is "stupid", you've now done it repeatedly?

Yes, I too am beginning to think that "moron" is a particularly
inarticulate way to describe you.

Now, you were saying....?


J

 

[Matt Garrish]

Matt Garrish wrote:

Did you happen to notice that you yourself used the word, just three
posts ago?

The "moron" is you.
--Matt Garrish

I don't think I've ever truly understood the use of laughing my ass off

as in usenet postings until you came along. You cite me citing you to
point out the word moron appeared once as attributed to me. What on
earth does that prove, other than the word is the sole extent of your
ability to write insults?

And did you happen to notice that, despite your assertion that posting
OT is "stupid", you've now done it repeatedly?

You started this thread with the childish statement that no one should
object to you posting because for some unknown reason posting cygwin
stuff here is to benefit the google groups world. You then made an
asinine remark to a regular poster here whose contribution you could
never hope to equal. So would you kindly explain how what I've posted
is off-topic? It's perfectly reasonable to discuss an off-topic post
and/or tell the poster what is thought of them. Or are you now the
grand vizier of usenet posting after your one miraculous foray?

Yes, I too am beginning to think that "moron" is a particularly
inarticulate way to describe you.

Congratulations, it only took you a day to tire of the word. Feel free
to follow up as much as you like, I for one won't be bothering to read
anything else you post.

Matt

 

[Matt Garrish]

My apologies for this. Our little friend only pretended he'd posted to
alt.usenet.kooks by setting a followup, so in posting it back here I
bunged something up in google groups. That this guy doesn't see he's
the only nut still floors me, but whatever gets you off...

Matt

 

[beartiger]

Matt Garrish wrote:

You started this thread with the ... statement that no one should
object to<snip>

Should anyone object to your posting off topic here in clpm, and, if
not, why not?


J