ciative answer to someones positive and frankly quite
cheerful question.
On 6/22/10, Christopher Faylor
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 07:40:50PM +0200, Alexander T wrote:
>>On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:35:30AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>You're exaggerating. Most of t
> You're exaggerating. Most of the time when maintainers receive private
> email they redirect it to this list with a polite request to keep the
> discussion public. There is no "head handing".
O RLY?
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin
Why not just do the exe magic for executing the files only? When
opening, stating, copying, moving etc, you could leave it out. This
seems the most reasonable compromise to me, but there could of course
be cases which I am overseeing, but I wouldn't expect any script to
rely on exe magic when openi
Err, 'very deep' was a bit misleading, the error seemed to show up at
2-3 levels according to the last post in that thread.
On 6/8/10, Alexander T wrote:
> There is a similar post from 2009 where the conclusion is that this
> can be caused by very deep forking
> (http:/
There is a similar post from 2009 where the conclusion is that this
can be caused by very deep forking
(http://readlist.com/lists/cygwin.com/cygwin/6/34359.html). Is it
possible that the make script does very deep, or is stuck in infinite,
recursion?
On 6/8/10, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> On 6/7/20
Hi All,
I've read the mailing lists and found some posts back in 2003 talking
about porting apt to cygwin.
I'm going crazy needing to use the installer every time I forgot to
install a program, and also dealing with version upgrades and
conflicting versions. The installer.exe is also clunky when
6 matches
Mail list logo
