RE: Repost, different list...File::Spec, Cygwin, Syntactic vs.Semantic path analysis

On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 20:52, LA Walsh wrote: > Do you think this is proper behavior? Do you think a win32 person being > introduced to posix/gnu utils would find this beneficial? Do you think > a linux person who uses some combination of cygwin and Win utils would find > this beneficial?

Re: [Mostly to Charles Wilson] Upgrading Cygwin's CVS

On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 01:08, Jason Tishler wrote: > On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 07:58:48PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: > > Because of all that, I'd pretty much decided that the next time I > > update the 'cvs' package, I'm going to use the cvsnt codebase > > Well, there's always Subversion: > >

Re: Setup.exe

Gah. Sorry about the half-backed reply there. On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 04:24, Dave Hooper wrote: > (I believe Windows will by default wait until > setup.exe has exitted before closing the dialup connection) unless > setup.exe gives Windows a hint. I'm almost utterly convinced that a > sequence in se

RE: Setup.exe

On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 16:15, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > [snip] > > > You can assume IE4 is present on the system, thats already a requirement > > for setup to operate. > > > > GAH! NOW he tells me! ;-) Heh, you told me! (It's a requirement for the GUI update you implemented). Rob -- GPG key

RE: Repost, different list...File::Spec, cygwin, Syntactic vs. Semantic path analysis

Sorry for butting in again, but you have a factual error that needs highlighting. On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 13:18, linda w (cyg) wrote: > > Understanding that double slashes at the > > beginning of a path are special is good sense for any > > portable program. > --- > There you go again, makin

RE: Setup.exe

The core requirements are: win95 ie4 thats all we can assume will be present. Rob -- GPG key available at: . signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

RE: Repost, different list...File::Spec, cygwin, Syntactic vs. Semantic path analysis

On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 19:08, LA Walsh wrote: > Ok, did I mention POSIX? Posix != Unix. So what's your point? Cygwin targets POSIX compatability wherever posible. Any discussion about paths that ignores the POSIX standards will need to be reviewed with POSIX in mind. It's easier to do tha

Re: "Cannot create a file when that file already exists"installation problem

On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 08:57, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > Redirecting this to the correct list. Setup.exe user problems are on-topic for [EMAIL PROTECTED] last I heard. The only time they need to be redirected is when they start going into design/feature changes/package creation issues. Rob -- GPG

Re: Adding/removing custom mirror URLs in setup.exe...

On Sat, 2003-01-18 at 06:20, Max Bowsher wrote: > Don't know whether setup understands usernames/passwords. I'll dig in the > source tomorrow, if no one has answered by then. It should, Corinna IIRC uses ftp w/passwords. Rob -- GPG key available at:

Re: How to automatically process file/dir names?

On Sat, 2003-01-18 at 22:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > > Quite a few problems arise from within self-written scripts when dealing > with (Windows') file and directory names containing spaces. Are you aware that spaces in file and directory names are legal on unix? Rob -- GPG key

Re: Adding/removing custom mirror URLs in setup.exe...

On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 21:25, Johan Bezem wrote: > Maybe it doesn't parse the ftp://... string itself, but in our case it > *works* nonetheless. > Can it be that the string is passed to the FTP-server unaltered, and the Are you using the IE connection type, or the HTTP proxy type? If so, then they

Re: Security Issue with Cygwin

On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 11:48, Lambeth Darwin wrote: > To whom it may concern; > > Not sure if you know this or not, but the default configuration with Cygwin allows >any user to change to any directory on a W2K box and delete whatever files they want. >I have installed it with the current default

Re: Cygwin Release process

Bill, IMO you are missing a key point: Cygwin is volunteer maintained. No release manager volunteer, and no stable release maintainer (who will maintain stable packages after they become stale) have stepped up. The *only* way you will get a stable release is to: 1) offer to take on all the extr

Re: [RFC]: Meet Cyppy, the irritating Cygwin mascot!

On Sun, 2003-02-02 at 14:10, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > I hereby formally propose the character shown in the attached image, known only > as "Cyppy", for the honor of "Official Cygwin Mascot". As an alternate name, > "Cyggy" may also work, but I'm partial to "Cyppy" for some reason. Sick man, si

Re: Packaging software built with cygwin

On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 05:55, Jay Maynard wrote: > > A setup.ini with just the cygwin DLL in it seems pretty simple. > > True. OTOH, when setup.exe changes, the format of that file is subject to > change (see Igor's warning in the message where he first suggested that). I > can insulate myself fr

Re: "Couldn not exec" error message

On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 14:13, Ke-Wei Ma wrote: > Lets give this one more try. It appears that my original request for help was > met with some slight hostility by some list serv purists/ watch dogs. Which part of "this is offtopic" don't you understand? There is a dedicated list for cygwin X-ser

Re: setup.exe joblist for downloading

On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 18:53, Randall R Schulz wrote: > Chris, > > Au contraire! Which version of the setup.ini syntax does it support? (And did you leverage the setup.exe parser?) Rob -- GPG key available at: . signature.asc Description: This is

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 09:28, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > You know, I almost mentioned that but I think that someone (Robert > Collins maybe?) may have suggested this previously and I adamantly > intoned that these were ".tar.bz2 files dammit". We had a long thread on

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 08:59, Christopher Faylor wrote: > I suppose so, but, again, it seems like many people *recently* are unaware > of the setup program entirely. Hmm, I think we should add a new screen to setup.exe. After the install completes.. "Your cygwin install is now ready to use. Ple

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 08:31, andrew clarke wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 03:45:37PM +, John M. Adams wrote: > > > How do you get just 1 package via setup.exe? ... > So, to install a single package you will want to mark everything you > already have installed as Keep, and everything else as

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 08:23, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > Or have > >web crawlers changed such that this doesn't work anymore? > > I'll try that. Thanks. I wouldn't: google actively lowers your page ranking when it sees such garbage. Rob -- GPG key available at:

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 08:07, andrew clarke wrote: > > --08:06:16-- http://cygwin.com/setup.exe > > 4 Last-Modified: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 00:50:47 GMT > > Hmm, nobody is working on it after all? Thats the production release. We change that only when we are *sure* that the new version is fully st

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 10:53, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > On 15 Feb 2003, Robert Collins wrote: > > > On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 09:28, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > I was also thinking of creating a '/dev/tty' file in the archiv

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sun, 2003-02-16 at 10:41, Peter A. Castro wrote: > > Where, exactly, did you read this (a link to some doc would be > enightening)? I see nothing about this in Googles documentation of Page > Ranking. And, google isn't the only search engine out there. I'd think > you'd want to try and get

Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

On Sun, 2003-02-16 at 11:48, Peter A. Castro wrote: > On 16 Feb 2003, Robert Collins wrote: > > > On Sun, 2003-02-16 at 10:41, Peter A. Castro wrote: > > > Where, exactly, did you read this (a link to some doc would be > > > enightening)? I see nothing about this in

Re: xsltproc segfaults after upgrading to docbook xsl stylesheetsv1.60.1

On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 06:14, Patrick Eisenacher wrote: > Greetings, > May I ask the libxml and libxslt package maintainer to upgrade the > packages to a newer version that fixes the crash. Are you still the > maintainer, Robert? Yes, and this takes the current version from 'old' to 'old + bugg

Re: [avail for test] libtool-devel-20030216-1

On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 08:47, Max Bowsher wrote: > I've discovered something which is only a problem when doing a > CC='gcc -mno-cygwin' compile - namely, that the new wrapper executables do > execv("/bin/bash",...), which quite obviously, msvcrt doesn't understand. > > Now, I don't think that ma

Re: GPL Violation

On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 05:44, Christopher Faylor wrote: > Maybe I will make the DLL available but not advertise it for people like > you who just want a place to point people. That would mean that you would > remove cygwin1.dll from your distribution and then just point people to > this "secret" l

Re: Command-line options for setup.exe

On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 09:46, Max Bowsher wrote: > Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Max Bowsher wrote: > >> No, building it as a MinGW app is fine. > >> But it must be run from a CYGWIN=tty shell. > > > > Oh, ok. I don't use "tty" myself, so I needed it built as a Cygwin > > app.

Re: Command-line options for setup.exe

On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 10:26, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > That will let setup iterate over the options, extracting the help text > > and placing into a GUI text area (or a combobox etc etc). > > Hmm, build a const String and pop up a MessageBox? > Igor As a 'For instance', yes. Rob --

Re: Command-line options for setup.exe

A cute thing that the iteration interface to the command line options would enable is a 'tip of the day' - randomly choose a parameter from the collection, and show just it to the user. (Presumably combined with some static tips on the GUI :]). Rob -- GPG key available at:

Re: Minimum Install for Executable Distrubution

On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 22:48, Thorsten Kampe wrote: > So you're telling me that > > a) there is no particular reason why the Cygwin creators made a "Base > Category" (different to all other categories (Editors, Shells)) There was a very long discussion on the cygwin-apps list about the categorie

Re: download of setup.bz2 does not start

On Sat, 2004-08-14 at 19:29, Johannes Lebek wrote: > Hi there, > > I just wanted to update my Cygwin installation. No matter which server I > choose, the download of "setup.bz2" does not start. > My screen looks like this: Thats strange. have you tried IE5 for the connection type ? Rob -- GPG

see you all... its been a privilege

Recently (within the last month), I've found myself only using windows for ~ 1/20th of my computing activities, and then only using cygwin as a user, not developing anything. So, its with some sadness I bid the cygwin community adieu, at least for now. I've enjoyed being part of this community,

Re: Custom installer

On Sun, 2004-08-15 at 05:51, Bertalan Fodor wrote: > Does anyone have an experience with implementing a custom installer for > some cygwin package? (I'd like to have a one-click installer for the > lilypond package). Or can setup.exe be switched to a mode that doesn't > need user interaction? T

Re: see you all... its been a privilege

On Sun, 2004-08-15 at 12:47, Larry Hall wrote: > > > Rob, > > I'm sorry to hear that you don't plan to be around these parts in the future. > I certainly appreciated your efforts and your input over the years, as I'm > sure others did too. Good luck with your new job! :-) > Thanks... Its n

RE: 1.1.10 Problem: mv and directories in use

> -Original Message- > From: Xavier Bergade [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 8:31 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: 1.1.10 Problem: mv and directories in use > > > On windows XP & 2000: > open 2 instances of cygwin > > instance 1: > mkdir /1 && echo

RE: More setup wishes

> -Original Message- > From: Earnie Boyd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 12:18 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: More setup wishes > > > I would like to be able to maximize/minimize the chooser > window. I've got this nice big 21" monitor and the cho

RE: ncftp current release won't run - missing

> -Original Message- > From: Gord Wait [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 3:18 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: ncftp current release won't run - missing > > > Ok, I read the Faq, I'm sorry for assuming I could just run > setup.exe and update my sys

RE: Question on the new behavior of setup.exe

> -Original Message- > From: Doug Wyatt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 8:50 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Question on the new behavior of setup.exe > > > Hi, > > Back on 25Mar2002, Robert Collins replied to a posti

RE: ncftp current release won't run - missing CYGREADLINE5.DLL

deleted, and how to manually walk thru > the installation and install separate packages in order to > restore deleted dlls, > which I then paraphrased and posted in reply > to Robert Collins question. > > If setup.exe is now fixed, thats great, > I guess the Faq needs to

RE: ncftp current release won't run - missing CYGREADLINE5.DLL

> -Original Message- > From: Gord Wait [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 1:48 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: ncftp current release won't run - missing > CYGREADLINE5.DLL > > > > Sorry Robert, > I lost the last word on the subject line when I post

RE: ncftp current release won't run - missing CYGREADLINE5.DLL

> -Original Message- > From: David Starks-Browning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 11:45 PM > Someone will have to explain to me how the FAQ is wrong here. > (Apologies if it's been stated. This thread has been > difficult for me to follow, even after stu

RE: ncftp current release won't run - missing CYGREADLINE5.DLL

> -Original Message- > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 11:52 PM > I am concerned by reports that someone updated their > installation (apparently) with the most recent setup.exe and > still had the problem. If that is the case, th

RE: ncftp current release won't run - missing CYGREADLINE5.DLL

> -Original Message- > From: Gord Wait [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 5:40 AM > I have a couple of other machines with cygwin on it, if I can > duplicate it, I'll keep the log and send it to ?? me. Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsub

RE: ncftp current release won't run - missing CYGREADLINE5.DLL

> -Original Message- > From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 1:03 AM > Just chiming in with a stupid thought. There are times when > just `for sureness sake' you want to remove everything, > except for /home and probably /etc. Wouldn't it

RE: ncftp current release won't run - missing CYGREADLINE5.DLL

> -Original Message- > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 8:46 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: ncftp current release won't run - missing > CYGREADLINE5.DLL > > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 08:38:

RE: Which OS Type

> -Original Message- > From: Gupta, Sanjay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 5:04 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: Re: Which OS Type > > > Thanks Randall R Schulz, > Your response was very quick. I just want to make sure that > all windows platforms hav

RE: WinXP users without password and cygwin_logon_user

> -Original Message- > From: Pavel Tsekov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 7:52 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: WinXP users without password and cygwin_logon_user > > > Hello, there! :) > > I want to raise this issue again... In short > on my WinXP Home

RE: Re[2]: WinXP users without password and cygwin_logon_user

> -Original Message- > From: Pavel Tsekov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 9:04 PM > RC> There is a policy setting - prevent logons with blank passwords > RC> except for console users. You could try flipping that and > see what > RC> happens. > > > Well, I

RE: Question on the new behavior of setup.exe

> -Original Message- > From: Karl Chen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 11:42 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Question on the new behavior of setup.exe > > > > I had the same problem with the 2.194 setup.exe, not on a > network share, but now I can

RE: ncftp current release won't run - missing CYGREADLINE5.DLL

> -Original Message- > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 12:20 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: ncftp current release won't run - missing > CYGREADLINE5.DLL > > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 11:57:

RE: setup.exe wishlist

> -Original Message- > From: Christoph Kukulies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 12:20 AM > I recently upgraded from the b20 full.exe setup mechanism to > the newer b20.1 setup.exe. BTW, it looks like a centura team > developer application or where does thi

RE: Should setup suggests to downgrade? [WAS: Lillypond for Cygwin]

Redirect this to cygwin-apps please folk. > -Original Message- > From: David A. Cobb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 1:59 AM > > TODO > > [..] > > * Don't downgrade if the curr version is <= installed? > > > >Btw, this should apply to test too, I think. >

RE: Should setup suggests to downgrade? [WAS: Lillypond for cygwin]

> -Original Message- > From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 7:03 PM > Never say never? Suppose a showstopper bug is found in a > released package - say one which could result in filestore or > configuration corruption. The quickest solution

RE: Should setup suggests to downgrade? [WAS: Lillypond for cygwin]

> -Original Message- > From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 12:07 AM Thanks for the feedback.. I'll have a look in the logs tomorrow. > [I've already mentioned I'm not happy with the current > download mode - I think it loses a lot of its potent

fastcall for gcc

Chris, would you accept a patch to give cygwin gcc FASTCALL support? Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: fastcall for gcc

> -Original Message- > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 9:07 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: fastcall for gcc > > > On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:01:18AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: > >would you

RE: fastcall for gcc

> -Original Message- > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 9:12 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: fastcall for gcc > > > On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:08:28AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: > >

RE: glib threads

> -Original Message- > From: Dave Brondsema [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 3:23 PM > > Any help here would be greatly appreciated. Cygwin has pthreads and/or Win32threads as available threading models. Check the configure.in test and config.log to see why it

RE: Setup configuration files specific to an installation.

> -Original Message- > From: Daniel Watford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 10:58 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Setup configuration files specific to an installation. > > > > Hi all, > > Using setup.exe, what files (if any) are generated during the

RE: ps command - revisited

> -Original Message- > From: Alan Dobkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 1:59 PM > Similarly, > the System process should be identified as such instead of unknown. What is the 'System process'? Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsub

RE: ps command - revisited

> -Original Message- > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 2:24 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: ps command - revisited > > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:03:15PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: &g

RE: REPOST: unlink semantics

> -Original Message- > From: Chris January [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 9:57 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: REPOST: unlink semantics > > > With respect to the 'Infinte Loop in "rm -fr"' thread, I > believe the current semantics of unlink on Cygw

RE: is it impossible to use 2000-like command.com on 98?

> -Original Message- > From: Chris January [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 9:54 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: is it impossible to use 2000-like command.com on 98? > > > > I use win98. > > I just wanna use cmd.exe like bash shell not > > command

RE: REPOST: unlink semantics

> -Original Message- > From: Randall R Schulz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 12:45 AM > Does that > break even more things? IIRC, Yes. Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.h

RE: Automating Package Updates

> -Original Message- > From: Alan Dobkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 6:25 AM > > Has anyone developed a mechanism to notify and automatically > update Cygwin packages on deployed systems? AFA I am aware, no. > I've searched > the list and haven't see

RE: Re[4]: Frequent crashes in 2.194.2.22 setup.exe

I've checked the patch in. A new setup.exe will be uploaded when the build completes. Thanks again to Pavel for tracking these 'oversights' :} down! Rob > -Original Message- > From: Pavel Tsekov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 1:49 AM > To: Eric Hanchrow > C

RE: setup.exe v.2.194.2.24 : tetex-beta-20001218-4

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 5:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: setup.exe v.2.194.2.24 : tetex-beta-20001218-4 > > > Either it's the new setup.exe v.2.194.2.24, or some glitch i

Updated setup.exe to fix recent win98 crashes.

Setup 2.194.2.24 has been uploaded to the usual place. It contains Pavel Tsekov's patch, so should correct the recently reported crashing. Cheers, Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http

RE: Error compiling cygwin-snapshot-20020409-1

> -Original Message- > From: Steve Howe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 8:37 PM > > Since I can't see any reason for the error, I assume that > the source > > has been locally modified or the header files are screwed up. > None of these. Why don't you try y

g++ -shared and libstdc++.a specs bug?

Using g++ -shared to build a C++ dll, it failed to link with a number of missing symbols. Adding -lstdc++ to the link line fixed this. The interesting point is that the static build worked fine. I presume the correct solution is either a dllised libstdc++, or a specs file tweak. I'm not a g++ sp

RE: Compliance with the GPL (cygwin)

> -Original Message- > From: Herbert Valerio Riedel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 7:17 PM > >4) mention the availability of the source code for libraries > > used to create their windows port somewhere on their > > webpage (not strictly neces

RE: Setup 2.194.2.24 available?

> -Original Message- > From: Rick Rankin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 7:24 AM > That's pretty weird. I've tried a couple more times, once > after renaming my existing setup.exe, but I still get > 2.194.2.22. It must be cached somewhere between me and >

RE: New directories for each mirror

> -Original Message- > From: Alan Starr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 1:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: New directories for each mirror > > > I recently changed from setup version 2.125.2.10 to > 2.194.2.24. Now, whenever I download from a mirror,

RE: New directories for each mirror

> -Original Message- > From: Alan Starr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 1:19 PM > To: Robert Collins > Subject: RE: New directories for each mirror > > > Now I have 4 folders, one for each mirror I chose. Yes. And setup will try

RE: New directories for each mirror

> -Original Message- > From: Alan Starr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 1:21 PM > To: Robert Collins > Subject: RE: New directories for each mirror > > > I liked the old behavior better. That's nice. Rob -- Unsubscribe in

RE: gettime time travels after suspend

> -Original Message- > From: Chris January [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > There is a similar problem here with timeouts passed to > WaitForSingleObjectEx, and WaitForMultipleObjectsEx. I was > thinking of generating a patch that does a single retry when > a Wait* times out. Is the con

RE: gettime time travels after suspend

> -Original Message- > From: Chris January [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 7:48 PM > Hmm - I wonder why those values were made absolute though. I don't think the SUS designers thought of suspending machines :}. Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.co

RE: [PATCH] gettimeofday time travels

> -Original Message- > From: Philip Aston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 6:30 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PATCH] gettimeofday time travels > > > > cgf writes: > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 09:58:48PM +0100, Philip Aston > wrote: > >How abo

RE: True Static Linking

> -Original Message- > From: Westley Weimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 1:50 PM > I am willing to have "hello.exe" be fairly large, but > shipping all of cygwin1.dll (700K) is not allowed. If this > were linux I would pull all of the .o files out of c

RE: pthread_cond_wait does not relock mutex on release

> -Original Message- > From: Michael Labhard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 5:01 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: pthread_cond_wait does not relock mutex on release > > > Don't no if anyone else has noticed this: the > pthread_cond_wait when signal

RE: pthread_cond_wait does not relock mutex on release

> -Original Message- > From: Michael Labhard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 10:51 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: pthread_cond_wait does not relock mutex on release > > > Robert and Gerald: > > Both quite right.  Although adding the SA

RE: texmf-related *.lnk files in /bin/ : invalid?

Setup create the .lnk style symbolic shortcuts based on the tar file contents. Nothing is brojen, nothing needs changing, norton is making assumptions. If it is of enough concern, the tar file creator could alter their symlinks before they create the tarball to reference the .exe's instead. Rob

RE: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

> -Original Message- > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 5:38 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24 > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:28:19AM -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote: > >I think to generalize, the

RE: Where is the manual to manually install cygwin in Windows 2000

> -Original Message- > From: Lawrence W. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 3:19 AM > Not entirely true sometimes it improves sometimes it meanders > down a blind alley or two granted. > It's free software as a nobody user I accept its oddities and >

RE: Why did you guys break EVERYTHING...

Without ANY example of what you are calling, there is NO way that assistance can be provided. Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http:/

RE: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

> -Original Message- > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 8:02 AM > >> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:41:04 +0100 Alan Hourihane > >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think this is because you > >>haven't installed the packages yet. I think setup

RE: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

> -Original Message- > From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 9:10 AM > Since noone acknowledged it was a bug I've been assuming it was a (rather strange to me) design feature. Actually, I acknowledged it as a bug, but one I couldn't repeat until

RE: Why did you guys break EVERYTHING...

> -Original Message- > From: Schwartz, Barry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 12:30 PM > To: 'Chris Ellsworth'; Schwartz, Barry; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Why did you guys break EVERYTHING... > > > OK. Feeling better now... If one of my customers wro

RE: Copy-on-write fork

> -Original Message- > From: Chris January [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 12:07 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Copy-on-write fork > > > This is mainly a question aimed at Christopher Faylor, but > maybe someone else knows the answer. My question is

RE: I am not going to let Cygwin BSOD my Windows 2000 Server

> -Original Message- > From: George Hester [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 4:52 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: I am not going to let Cygwin BSOD my Windows 2000 Server Consider this: A BSOD is equivalent to a unix kernel panic - usermode software shou

RE: Where is the manual to manually install cygwin in Windiows 2000

http://cygwin.com/cvs.html Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: I am not going to let Cygwin BSOD my Windows 2000 Server

> -Original Message- > From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 4:14 AM > (*) has anybody ported GnuPG to cygwin? Would you mind supporting it > and adding it to the cygwin dist? If someone has ported it to mingw, that would be even better

RE: Compiling cygwin

Theres a bug in the cinstall directory which I will be resolving shortly. For now, you can ignore that directories failure. Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.htm

RE: The Server Daemon

> -Original Message- > From: Richard Troy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 3:05 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: The Server Daemon > > > > Hi All, > > So, I'm trying to get started with implementing the honoring > of the suid bit by cygwin. I've downlo

RE: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

> -Original Message- > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 10:16 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24 > > > On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 09:31:02AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: &g

RE: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

> -Original Message- > From: Gerrit P. Haase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 6:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24 > > > Hallo Robert, > > > And I *stil* cannot reproduce it. Setup detects the local > files *every > > s

RE: Is Cygwin legal under Windows XP?

> -Original Message- > From: Sam Edge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 8:31 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Is Cygwin legal under Windows XP? > > > You wrote in <3CC24897.10238.884BE175@localhost> > in gmane.os.cygwin on Sun, 21 Apr 2002 05:05:27 -05

RE: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24

> -Original Message- > From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 11:55 PM > It seems then that the buggy behaviour is present on W9X NT and W2K but not XP. Since the majority of Cygwin users do not > use XP (yet) I'd suggest that it would be a good i

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >