On Fri, 2003-07-04 at 15:53, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Finally got a chance to try this:
Does it interact (worsely) with large/small font settings. And so
on.
Doesn't interact at all here from what I can tell, but I never had the problem
before either.
Ditto.
The exact point of
On Sat, 2003-07-05 at 00:20, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
Nigel,
A local checkout of a cvs repository is no different than an extracted
source tarball (except for the CVS subdirectories where cvs stores its
administrative information).
Igor, this is not true in the general case. source
On Sat, 2003-07-05 at 11:24, Jordan Bortz wrote:
So it goes without saying that I cant believe it doenst work; the setup
fails completely on XP whether I run from local disk or from internet
Is this a known problem or what?
I mean it doesnt work at all...it usually doesnt find any
On Sat, 2003-07-05 at 11:58, Robert Collins wrote:
On Sat, 2003-07-05 at 11:24, Jordan Bortz wrote:
So it goes without saying that I cant believe it doenst work; the setup
fails completely on XP whether I run from local disk or from internet
Is this a known problem or what?
I mean
On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 07:21, Max Bowsher wrote:
I could have misinterpreted cgf's veto. I'm not entirely sure whether he was
vetoing the package, or the use of yet another build system.
The build system per se doesn't matter.
We hashed this out waay back.
What matters is:
The binary layout.
Benjamin Riefenstahl wrote:
Hi Robert,
Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm still a little leery, as the already pointed out limitations -
are there machines with vector instead of bitmaps Dlg fonts.
As I already mentioned before, that is not the issue at all. It's
nice for debugging
Max Bowsher wrote:
OK, I've committed the bulk of these changes - that is, all files which have
both and inclusion guard and a standard-form copyright comment.
Here are some comments on the remainder:
md5.h rfc1738.h: Imported from elsewhere, so I'm not changing them.
Cool.
resource.h: Special
Max Bowsher wrote:
The expression ((unsigned char) *p = (unsigned char) 0xFF)) is always
true.
(Found by gcc-3.3)
Sure - please do. (I hadn't had time to propogate the squid fix across :}).
Rob
Max Bowsher wrote:
2003-06-22 Max Bowsher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Makefile.am (AM_CXXFLAGS): Remove -Wmissing-declarations, which is
a
C-only warning.
Please check in.
Rob
Yes, in fact, you could add -Winline to the CFLAGS section again, as the
C code won't hit the STL issue.
Rob
Max Bowsher wrote:
Ping?
This is trivial in complexity, so shouldn't require a long review.
It is just:
-FONT 8, MS Sans Serif
+FONT 8, MS Shell Dlg
all through res.rc.
I've tested it, it works.
OK to apply?
I'm still a little leery, as the already pointed out limitations - are
there machines
Max Bowsher wrote:
I'm about to do the include guard cleanup I mentioned some time ago.
Whilst I'm tidying up the names of the include guards, I might as well tidy
up the locations of the include guards (with respect to the comments at the
start of the file). Is this ordering OK? :
Max Bowsher wrote:
Off-list (presumably accidentally), Gary R. Van Sickle replied:
I tend to think that the include guards should wrap as much of the file as
possible, idea being that the compiler then bypasses the most text
possible.
But then again, rumor has it that gcc (at least) recognizes
The bug is in the parsing yes And yes, it's definately a bug, as setup's
parser supports package names with - in them.
For now - patches gratefully accepted.
(PS I suggest reviewing the setup parser - you'll need the same order of
sub-portion extraction to get the right results easily.
Rob
Because the results are undefined, you are permitted to return EBUSY...
Rob
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Sorry for not replying in thread - I deleted the email a little fast :p.
Anyway, ':' is -not- in the POSIX portable filename character set:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xbd/glossary.html#tag_004_000_
207
':' as a special behaviour is not a Windows invention, it harks (in
On Thu, 2003-06-05 at 23:27, S.L. wrote:
From a user point of view, I would create a 'Shells' subcategory for 'Base'.
And an intermediate step for setup to manage the /bin/sh issue (when the
user chooses more than one shell).
Nope.
ash is part of base. It's a required component for the
Approved on one condition - please remove the reference to folk in Hell.
I'm not christian, but that doesn't seem at all appropriate.
A small suggestion (doesn't prevent it being commited) - a helper fn to
return an already casted value might reduce the number of casts needed.
Cheers,
Rob
On
On Sat, 2003-05-31 at 04:58, Max Bowsher wrote:
2003-05-30 Max Bowsher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* res.rc: Resize title controls to fully fill available width.
Approved.
Rob
--
GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt.
signature.asc
Description: This is a
On Sat, 2003-05-31 at 02:05, Max Bowsher wrote:
Benjamin Riefenstahl wrote:
Hi all,
Benjamin Riefenstahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Attached a simple patch to choose.cc to do this.
Is nobody interested?
Setup.exe only has one maintainer, and not even very many people who
regularly
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 20:15, Max Bowsher wrote:
Robert Collins wrote:
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 19:40, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
The question is not what I'd like, but what you won't. If RECTWrapper
is still acceptable, that's what it'll be.
RECTWrapper is still acceptable.
Can we
On Mon, 2003-04-07 at 08:40, Max Bowsher wrote:
Index: download.cc
===
RCS file: /home/max/cvsmirror/cygwin-apps-cvs/setup/download.cc,v
retrieving revision 2.36
diff -u -p -u -p -r2.36 download.cc
--- download.cc 9 Mar 2003
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 19:23, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
2003-04-05 Gary R. Van Sickle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* RECTPP.h: New file.
Much better. A few remaining nits.
a) The class name, as discussed before.
b) RECTCC_H__F4098557_9A48_446d_AF28_2BE45D29F68D__INCLUDED_
Uhm, thats plain
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 19:41, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Adds a note_nobox() variant of the note() function which doesn't pop up a
message box. Used in an upcoming patch to eliminate the final, separate,
Install Complete message box in favor of a more-traditional Finished page.
This duplicates
Max,
I'm still waiting on feedback from you. I don't need a patch for the
MD5 checksums immediately, but I do need to know if you are working on
one, or if you are objecting in principle but not planning on creating a
patch.
If the former, lets set a date for having the patch by.
If the
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 01:09, Max Bowsher wrote:
If the former, lets set a date for having the patch by.
If the latter, let me know and I'll release setup.exe.
Sorry, thought I had replied, but I can't find the message in the archives.
I will try and get a patch done by the time you
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 08:37, Max Bowsher wrote:
Well, a command line 'off' switch will do the job. It will require
conscious decision.. yep, I'm happy with that.
It can go in the next release, which currently has:
* post install logging
* Pierre's new security updates
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 08:38, Max Bowsher wrote:
I'm working in this area to implement the MD5-on-install feature. Is there
any reason why I should not simplify this:
From memory there was either a const correctness issue, or a funny
optimiser bug. Lets keep non-related bugfixes to HEAD though.
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 08:53, Max Bowsher wrote:
I read it as the patches aren't necessarily in yet, but will go in before
the release...
Sounds reasonable. But discussion seems to have fizzled regarding Pierre's
patch, so we must be careful it isn't forgotten.
Perhaps the pendig patch
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 09:15, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
At 11:53 PM 4/5/2003 +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
Sounds reasonable. But discussion seems to have fizzled regarding Pierre's
patch, so we must be careful it isn't forgotten.
I go by what Rob wrote earlier
I've fixed the bug in both HEAD
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 09:31, Max Bowsher wrote:
Robert Collins wrote:
Perhaps the pendig patch list should be resurrected?
Will do.
Thanks.
Please, just disable the md5 checks via a command line option.
There are non-trivial (non-code) issues to make it default to as-needed.
OK
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 13:01, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
And that adaptation is not in a manner analagous to that happening in e.g.
HANDLEWrapper*. xxWrapper are full-blown, honest-to-God classes, with
destructors and everything, and are not inherited from structs. Virtual
functions could be
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 13:40, Robert Collins wrote:
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 13:01, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
And that adaptation is not in a manner analagous to that happening in e.g.
HANDLEWrapper*. xxWrapper are full-blown, honest-to-God classes, with
destructors and everything
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 01:01, Max Bowsher wrote:
Robert Collins wrote:
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 19:23, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
2003-04-05 Gary R. Van Sickle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* RECTPP.h: New file.
Much better. A few remaining nits.
a) The class name, as discussed before
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 01:46, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
It's a GUID, it's supposed to by ugly. Guaranteed to be unique, not going to
collide with anything ever. That's how MS's AppWizard does it, and it seems
like a good idea to me. Please Rob, if you're going to pick nits, pick on
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 04:13, Max Bowsher wrote:
Also, the file has DOS line endings. If convenient, please d2u it.
Otherwise, mention that the committer must d2u it when you resend.
Good catch, and a very important point.
Rob
--
GPG key available at:
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 09:24, Max Bowsher wrote:
(We're not a library, so the namespace is ours).
Rather sparsely used at the moment. Want me to do a global rename?
Sure, if you have the time.
Probably obvious, but this doesn't apply to
libgetopt++/zlib/bz2lib/librsync.
If you have the
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 09:51, Max Bowsher wrote:
Maybe RECTWrapper
Exactly.
Reviewing my suggestion, I don't like it any more. After all, is doesn't
wrap - it inherits.
The Adapter pattern (Design Patterns, pg 139) a.k.a. Wrapper uses
inheritance.
Rob
--
GPG key available at:
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 10:02, Max Bowsher wrote:
But RECTFOO is a completely different sort of thing to
SIDWrapper/HANDLEWrapper. Surely we shouldn't call it something that
suggests resemblance?
Your point is reasonable. However, the goal of both things is to ease
the use of a MS struct, and
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 18:58, Mark Moore wrote:
Robert,
If the permission on the folder pointed to by $TEMP is going to be changed
during install, it seems to me it would be done by setup.exe. If not, where
would that operation be performed?
Setup doesn't set any special permissions. It
So, while we have a few quirks, we have no regressions now.
Any last objections from the crowd here to my marking 2.340.2.4 as
released?
Rob
--
GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Fri, 2003-04-04 at 19:15, Max Bowsher wrote:
Robert Collins wrote:
So, while we have a few quirks, we have no regressions now.
Any last objections from the crowd here to my marking 2.340.2.4 as
released?
Yep.
The lengthy forced MD5 checking in local mode *will* cause lots
On Fri, 2003-04-04 at 10:01, Max Bowsher wrote:
The setup-200303 branch tag has been restored to it's correct location.
Thank you *very* much.
Rob
--
GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Fri, 2003-04-04 at 09:05, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
Thanks to both of you. I just pointed the OP to the snapshot.
Igor
P.S. Rob, I know it's too early to ping on the last pre/postremove script
logging patch (http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-04/msg1.html),
but it'd be nice
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 01:52, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On 4 Apr 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
So, while we have a few quirks, we have no regressions now.
Any last objections from the crowd here to my marking 2.340.2.4 as
released?
Rob
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-04/msg00436.html
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 07:13, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On 5 Apr 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
Why? It was reported on the current released setup. It's not a
regression therefore.
Rob
Ok, you're correct. As long as we can recommend that certain people try a
snapshot... No objections
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 07:51, John Morrison wrote:
I'm waiting to hear back from Max as to whether he intends to offer a
patch (and if so, when to do what) for the local cache MD5 checks, but
AFAIK thats the only current delay.
I also would like to be able to switch off the local cache
On Fri, 2003-04-04 at 10:45, Alan Dobkin wrote:
I didn't mean to imply that it doesn't work now, only that the method
I've used to create the mirror doesn't seem to be the problem.
It's not the problem, it's just how you are using the mirror :}.
It's also clearly noted that cygwins local
On Fri, 2003-04-04 at 19:22, Max Bowsher wrote:
Alan Dobkin wrote:
On 4 Apr 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
you should use apache or IIS to serve out the mirror and add
it to your mirror selection creen in the custom URL field.
Then, setup won't check the md5's of every package
On Fri, 2003-04-04 at 20:42, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
I've been following this discussion from the sidelines for a while.. hope
you don't mind be butting in.
Oh, terribly. No gold stars for you. ;].
On 4 Apr 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
Setup doesn't have a concept of a local mirror
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 17:43, Mark Moore wrote:
Christopher,
I've read the http://cygwin.com/lists.html. Here's the description for the
mailing list I posted to:
...
The passage [cygwin-apps] is the preferred location for design discussions
and bug reports regarding cygwin's setup.exe
On Fri, 2003-04-04 at 07:13, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
Rob, Max,
Could we either release a snapshot with the postinstall logging changes in
it (from HEAD), or backport postinstall logging into the release branch?
I think it could really help the above poster. I could post my own
compiled
On Fri, 2003-04-04 at 07:45, Max Bowsher wrote:
I'll kick off a HEAD snapshot in a couple of minutes.
Just did that :-)
2.348 uploaded.
Lol, so did I.
Release is feature frozen.
And I'll be tidying up the branch shortly.
Thank you.
Rob
--
GPG key available at:
On Fri, 2003-04-04 at 08:25, Max Bowsher wrote:
Robert Collins wrote:
Thank you.
No problem. Seems the are 3 nearly identical release candidate snapshots.
Unless I hear otherwise, I will replace all 3 with 2.340.2.4 once I've
completed the tidyup.
Ack.
Rob
--
GPG key available at: http
Alan Dobkin wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
Indeed, and here it is:
http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots/setup-2.340.2.3.2.10.2.1.exe
I haven't experienced any setup crashes, but I have a question
about it's behavior when used with the local directory option.
Each time I
On Fri, 2003-04-04 at 07:48, Alan Dobkin wrote:
I do see the status bar and it does update fine as long as I leave
the setup window in the foreground. However, as soon as I click on
another window to let it process in the background, that's when the
behavior I described occurs. I have
Can you update that patch to apply to the setup-200303-troubleshooting
branch?
To Robert:
What is the eventual fate of this branch?
Once all the code is reinstated...
Merge back into HEAD and setup-200303.
Cheers,
Rob
Vince Hoffman wrote:
Well I can t get either setup-2.340.2.3-O0-debug.exe or
setup-2.340.2.3-no-set_default_sec.exe to crash :)
using drmingw on the crash from setup-2.340.2.3.exe gives
the attached file. I am running Windows 2000 Pro SP3 on a duron processor.
patched to the latest from windows
Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
I have no idea what in the ntsec code is causing random crashes.
However a couple of week ago I submitted another patch, which
simplifies the logic. Rather than pursuing the current problem
it might be simpler to see if it still happens with the second patch.
Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
I can do that tonight EST but it would be simpler if you send me the original
of the file you want to patch. Otherwise I will need to pull my cvs manual
and figure out how to get it.
follow http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin-apps/setup.html, and grab HEAD.
I've fixed the
Max Bowsher wrote:
The setup-200303 branch tag has been inadvertantly moved, leaving the
original branch untagged and inaccessible, and also giving rise to the
insanely long version number assigned to the current setup snapshot.
I've inspected the RCS files, and can restore the setup-200303 to
Max Bowsher wrote:
I request cvsadmin membership so I can continue the cleanup from this stage,
I can't grant this (unless it's a cvs repository specific thing)..
Can you work with a local copy of the modules and sync it up afterwards?
Rob
Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
I've fixed the bug in both HEAD and the release branch. We'll save your
second patch for the next release.
OK. Hasn't that bug been in there forever?
I'm not sure. Whats really weird is the way it's suddleny cropped up.
Rob
Max Bowsher wrote:
Oh yes, the 2 page assertion failiure.
I can't imagine why it doesn't work for you. It works for me, testing on a
copy of the repository into my home dir *on sources.redhat.com*. You can't
get any closer to reproducing the situation than that, without actually
touching the
Earnie Boyd wrote:
Robert Collins wrote:
No, I used:
$ cvs -z4 tag -Fb setup-200303
in a setup-200303-troubleshooting working dir.
Which intuitively says ...? This should not have updated the cvs
repository. It would have been commits at a later date that would have
updated the repository
Marcel Telka wrote:
http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots/setup-2.340.2.3.2.6.exe
Cross fingers. This calls no windows API's, just sets a single variable
in memory.
Good news: No crash in 1000 runs.
Cool, ok adding the next line of code in, with changes to memory
allocation and use. (Long
Marcel Telka wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 09:24:18PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
Lets see how this goes...
http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots/setup-2.340.2.3.2.7.exe
crashes.
Can you guess the next version number?
FWIW, this is looking like an MS bug now. If the memory size we pass
Marcel Telka wrote:
FWIW, this is looking like an MS bug now. If the memory size we pass
into InitializeAcl causes segfaults, and the memory size is constant
.
Hm. I'm not looking into setup's sources now...
Not asking you too :}.
So, please try .9. I've coded to use the MS
Marcel Telka wrote:
So, please try .9. I've coded to use the MS documented sizing calculation.
1000 runs, no crash :-)
Fantastic. I'm reinstating all the code now, .10 will be up in ~ 5 mins
and (cross fingers) will also work well...
Rob
--
Unsubscribe info:
Michael Barr wrote:
As I said, I tried this a couple different ways with a
couple different ftp sites and it always ends this way.
Please try a snapshot of setup from http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots/
Cheers,
Rob
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug
Marcel Telka wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 11:38:13PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
Marcel Telka wrote:
So, please try .9. I've coded to use the MS documented sizing calculation.
1000 runs, no crash :-)
Fantastic. I'm reinstating all the code now, .10 will be up in ~ 5 mins
and (cross
Marcel Telka wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 11:58:39PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
Fantastic. I'm reinstating all the code now, .10 will be up in ~ 5 mins
and (cross fingers) will also work well...
no crash (1000 runs).
Fantastic. Thank you * very* much for your, oh, 8000 test runs.
Thank
Rainer Typke wrote:
I think that setup.exe presented the tetex-beta version in the list even
though I did not select [prev].
Thi is by design. We have a single namespace for all packages, even if
they don't have [curr] elements. In fact prev only elements get promoted
to curr.
But:
You should
Robert Collins wrote:
Fantastic. I'm reinstating all the code now, .10 will be up in ~ 5 mins
and (cross fingers) will also work well...
A final note: this is an MS bug. The MS
InitializeAcl routine appears to have a buffer overrun bug on your OS,
which when combined with a buffer smaller than
Martin Gainty wrote:
Rob-
How does the unsuspecting public understand what is happening here.
The same way I had to: study the code, eliminate whats occuring, review
the API usage, test, test, test.
Does DrWatson pick this up OR is there something in the logfile
Neither. DrWatson catches the
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 01:05, Max Bowsher wrote:
I propose making a snapshot with set_default_sec commented out, in order to
see if that stops the crashes. OK, Robert?
Oh, and Max, feel free to use your own judgement - you don't need my
permission to do things like this.
releases and webpage
Marcel Telka wrote:
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 11:36:38PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
I've uploaded a new setup troubleshooting snapshot:
http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots/setup-2.340.2.3-no-set_default_sec.exe
This is simply 2.340.2.3 with the recently-added ntsec code deactivated.
Please could
Marcel Telka wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 04:45:53PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
Great. Same thing, but only half the code disabled:
http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots/setup-2.340.2.3.2.4.exe
Please report back..
Crashes...
Ok, 3/4 disabled...
http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots/setup
Marcel Telka wrote:
Ok, 3/4 disabled...
http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots/setup-2.340.2.3.2.5.exe
Crash.
http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots/setup-2.340.2.3.2.6.exe
Cross fingers. This calls no windows API's, just sets a single variable
in memory.
Rob
--
Unsubscribe info:
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 20:01, Max Bowsher wrote:
However, the redefinition of fprintf in ini.cc, is as far as I can see,
totally unused, and can be removed.
Robert: Can you confirm this, and approve me to delete it from ini.cc ?
Well, fprintf *is* used in setup. The fprintf in ini.cc is
On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 02:42, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
Ping...
Igor
Pong.
Uhmm, try_run_script is always called with to_log true. So, why have the
parameter there at all?
Rob
--
GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt.
signature.asc
Description: This is a
On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 06:23, Danny Smith wrote:
Ergo, this will be a problem when the next mingw-runtime comes out.
Danny, if you have a patch for either mingw or setup, that'd be great.
Does what you are suggesting impose any limitations on setup ?
Probably simplest (for per-file
On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 00:52, Max Bowsher wrote:
Owww. That's horribly complicated and non-intuitive.
Any objections to rewriting the clients of weird-modified-fprintf to use the
msg.cc functions, and *then* disposing of our weird-modified-fprintf?
Yes. The clients are console routines,
On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 08:02, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On 1 Apr 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 02:42, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
Ping...
Igor
Pong.
Uhmm, try_run_script is always called with to_log true. So, why have the
parameter there at all?
Rob
On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 09:31, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
Rob,
The reason I wanted to keep the to_log parameter is that I wanted to keep
the code around that directs output to console. If there are no
objections, I'll just make the default value of to_log TRUE, and remove
the third
I second par.
Rob
--
GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 08:20, Max Bowsher wrote:
This bug gets more and more elusive. Plus, I had to reinstall Windows on my
desktop, and I can no-longer reproduce the crash.
Rolf, is Service Pack 1 installed on your home machine?
my hunch is that at O2 there is something being optimised
On Fri, 2003-03-28 at 18:26, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
Robert Collins wrote:
A new release of setup.exe is imminent. There are many changes, and to
reduce problems, feedback from YOU, is needed.
The new version is available from
http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots/setup-2.340.2.2.exe
On Fri, 2003-03-28 at 22:21, Danilo Turina wrote:
I'm using the beta in place of the stable version to keep up to date my
Cygwin installation and I have had no problems till now (WinXP SP1).
Great!
Thanks,
Rob
--
GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt.
On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 16:10, Thomas V. Fischer wrote:
I want to install Bitkeeper on my machine that is already running Cygwin
(latest build). However and contrary to the bitkeeper FAQ, it doesn't detect
my existing installation and doesn't want to recognize it.
If i don't install, the
On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 18:43, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
2003-03-30 Gary R. Van Sickle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* cygwin.ico: Added two new resolutions, 64x64 and 72x72.
Sorry, no Cyppy. Yet. ;-)
Max, this is approved - if you could check it in...
Thanks,
Rob
--
GPG key available
On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 18:20, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
So:
RECTPP.h would be the correct name.
Having said that RECTPP is not any of the ok naming conventions for
classes.
A quick recap:
The GNU standards are acceptable, even though I think their application
to C++ is less than
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 10:17, Danny Smith wrote:
I've been expecting a bug report for mingw-runtime and ini.cc in setup for
awhile, but haven't seen one, so I'll ask if the CVS mingw runtime is getting
any testing with setup anymore.
The problem is in the default usage of _CRTIMP ( =
I think I need to make some of the guidelines I'm using for code review
clear, to aid contributors in making acceptable patches. These are not
set in stone: They are subject to change, via both feedback from you,
and as I think of other things that are relevant. I'll setup a file in
CVS with this
Max,
how are you going with that patch? Would you like to brainstorm in
real-time? If so, I'm on irc.freenode.net, nickname 'lifeless'. I'll be
there for at least another hour, possibly two.
Cheers,
Rob
--
GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt.
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 19:30, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Yes. I've never liked 100K patches, even when I do them.
The source patch plus the new source file is only 50k total, at least 31k of
which is solely bigger-chooser (primarily res.rc, proppage.{cc,h},
propsheet.{cc,h}, Window.{cc,h})
This is the first-take review:
rectcc.h contains a class RECTPP. I *think* I posted my preference here
for file names - that is after the class.
So:
RECTPP.h would be the correct name.
Having said that RECTPP is not any of the ok naming conventions for
classes.
A quick recap:
The GNU standards
On Fri, 2003-03-28 at 21:04, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:
Robert Collins wrote:
I find this concern mystifiying though, we've had an rpm port from
Chuck for what - 3 ? 4 ? years.
And mine wasn't the first.
I aired my concern not at the thought
On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 03:36, Rolf Campbell wrote:
Well, unistalling that makes this setup work the same as the old setup.
So, does this setup do dependancy analysis different than the old one?
I would guess that this new one tries to install anything that is
depended on and not already
On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 08:15, Hannu E K Nevalainen (garbage mail) wrote:
If I have analyzed things correctly lately;
most of the GPL violations are done in this situation:
1) Person P writes/ports some nice software using cygwin.
2) P picks out required parts of cygwin runtime objects
301 - 400 of 2024 matches
Mail list logo
