RE: [PATCH] Setup Chooser integration

2002-04-03 Thread Gary R. Van Sickle
> >>Likewise, if you click ash off, up pops a window listing everything > >>that depends on ash, with an addiotnal message of "Warning: removing > >>ash will cause these packages to be removed as well. > >> > > > >This does make quite a bit of sense to me. But wouldn't MessageBox() > >or somethin

Re: stackdump.sgml new file

2002-04-03 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 09:18:11PM -0800, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: >> 2) The patch is included is an html attachment. >> >> Obviously 1) is a no-op but we really need just a straight patch in >> regular text. >> >Well, I'm not sure this is what you mean, here is the straight text of the >fi

Re: stackdump.sgml new file

2002-04-03 Thread Joshua Daniel Franklin
> 2) The patch is included is an html attachment. > > Obviously 1) is a no-op but we really need just a straight patch in > regular text. > Well, I'm not sure this is what you mean, here is the straight text of the file. Seems kinda silly for one this short. I put it in stackdump.sgml in /src/wi

Re: stackdump.sgml new file

2002-04-03 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 08:39:51PM -0800, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: >I was thinking about writing some updated documentation as requested >lately on the mailing list >(http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2002-03/msg01633.html) >I've started by writing a new file to document the existance of the >

stackdump.sgml new file

2002-04-03 Thread Joshua Daniel Franklin
I was thinking about writing some updated documentation as requested lately on the mailing list (http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2002-03/msg01633.html) I've started by writing a new file to document the existance of the cygwin_stackdump() function. ChangeLog: 2001-04-03 Joshua Daniel Franklin <

Re: Patch for Setup.exe problem and for mklink2.cc

2002-04-03 Thread Brian Keener
wrote: > > As for the &'s, I wonder if it's a w32api reference issue? The compiler > > > complains if they are present for me. > > For me it is the opposite. g++ complains when they are *not* > > present. > I believe this might be related to the above discussion so I thought I would add this

Re: [PATCH] Setup Chooser integration

2002-04-03 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 03:14:28PM -0600, Gary R Van Sickle wrote: >> Image: you click on 'install' for 'gcc', and up pops a window >> that lists >> everything that gcc depends on (both requires as we have today, and >> 'suggested' items that aren't always needed but are useful - ie >> autoconf),