Christopher Faylor writes:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 09:00:17AM +, Achim Gratz wrote:
> I can't duplicate this. If I redirect stdout I get this:
>
> Starting cygwin install, version 2.774
>
> and the log files contain the correct version too.
>
> Moreover, I can't find the string 2.769 in any
Yeah - Sorry all for any misunderstanding on my part. I seem to
remember I was in a caustic mood at the time anyway over something
very unrelated!
Will take care to not derail threads in the future.
Regards,
Nick
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: h
On 4/30/2012 12:34 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:29:27PM -0400, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
On 4/28/2012 8:51 PM, Nick Lowe wrote:
"I installed 2.772 on my systems as soon as it was available and I
don't see any such issue using my local mirror. Did you try another
mi
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:29:27PM -0400, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>On 4/28/2012 8:51 PM, Nick Lowe wrote:
>> "I installed 2.772 on my systems as soon as it was available and I
>> don't see any such issue using my local mirror. Did you try another
>> mirror?"
>>
>> Quite, but the idea of corrupt
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 09:00:17AM +, Achim Gratz wrote:
>Christopher Faylor cygwin.com> writes:
>> I think I fixed the problem. I at least fixed *a* problem. The latest
>> setup.exe, now on cygwin.com has the fix that solved the issue for me.
>
>The setup.exe currently on the website shows
On 4/28/2012 8:51 PM, Nick Lowe wrote:
"I installed 2.772 on my systems as soon as it was available and I
don't see any such issue using my local mirror. Did you try another
mirror?"
Quite, but the idea of corruption was implicit in that question. A
digital signature would rule that out.
No
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Nellis, Kenneth wrote:
> From: marco atzeri
>> BLODA is still a possibility, I have Symantec installed; or there is
>> subtle bug handling the missing files on the website
>>
>> Marco
>
> I had understood BLODA to affect Cygwin programs that rely on code
> in cygwin
From: marco atzeri
> BLODA is still a possibility, I have Symantec installed; or there is
> subtle bug handling the missing files on the website
>
> Marco
I had understood BLODA to affect Cygwin programs that rely on code
in cygwin1.dll that tries to bridge the imperfect divide between
the Unix
Christopher Faylor cygwin.com> writes:
> I think I fixed the problem. I at least fixed *a* problem. The latest
> setup.exe, now on cygwin.com has the fix that solved the issue for me.
The setup.exe currently on the website shows version 2.774 in the GUI, but logs
version 2.769 to the command li
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 02:24:29PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
I think I fixed the problem. I at least fixed *a* problem. The latest
setup.exe, now on cygwin.com has the fix that solved the issue for me.
cgf
Yes, I am *pleased* to report that it solved *two*
i
I forgot to add, it also needs to be signed by a trusted root for it
to be useful to most people.
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 1:51 AM, Nick Lowe wrote:
> "I installed 2.772 on my systems as soon as it was available and I
> don't see any such issue using my local mirror. Did you try another
> mirror?
"I installed 2.772 on my systems as soon as it was available and I
don't see any such issue using my local mirror. Did you try another
mirror?"
Quite, but the idea of corruption was implicit in that question. A
digital signature would rule that out. It was only a suggestion to
ensure that that wo
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 09:57:01PM +0100, Nick Lowe wrote:
>> It's bad etiquette to derail an email thread with unrelated questions.
>
>I certainly didn't mean to derail it, the other points were ancillary
>to the implicit point that I intended to make which is that if the
>executable was digitally
On 4/28/2012 10:45 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 02:24:29PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
I can duplicate this. I'll try to fix it today.
I think I fixed the problem. I at least fixed *a* problem. The latest
setup.exe, now on cygwin.com has the fix that solved the
> It's bad etiquette to derail an email thread with unrelated questions.
I certainly didn't mean to derail it, the other points were ancillary
to the implicit point that I intended to make which is that if the
executable was digitally signed, any potential corruption would
immediately be flagged b
It's bad etiquette to derail an email thread with unrelated questions.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 07:22:29PM +0100, Nick Lowe wrote:
>Is there a reason why the Cygwin executables, and certainly the
>installer, are not digitally signed by Redhat?
setup.exe is not produced by Red Hat and the Cygwin pr
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 02:24:29PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>I can duplicate this. I'll try to fix it today.
I think I fixed the problem. I at least fixed *a* problem. The latest
setup.exe, now on cygwin.com has the fix that solved the issue for me.
cgf
--
Problem reports: http:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 08:06:21PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Apr 28 13:02, Ken wrote:
marco atzeri wrote:
BLODA is still a possibility, I have Symantec installed; or there
is subtle bug handling the missing files on the website
Marco
Hi Marco,
Nice to
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 08:06:21PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Apr 28 13:02, Ken wrote:
>> marco atzeri wrote:
>> >BLODA is still a possibility, I have Symantec installed; or there
>> >is subtle bug handling the missing files on the website
>> >
>> >Marco
>> >
>> >
>> Hi Marco,
>>
>> Nice
Is there a reason why the Cygwin executables, and certainly the
installer, are not digitally signed by Redhat?
Also, with reference to:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/cjacks/archive/2009/03/27/manifesting-for-compatibility-on-windows-7.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd371711%28v=vs.85%29.a
On Apr 28 13:02, Ken wrote:
> marco atzeri wrote:
> >BLODA is still a possibility, I have Symantec installed; or there
> >is subtle bug handling the missing files on the website
> >
> >Marco
> >
> >
> Hi Marco,
>
> Nice to see that you can reproduce the problem! I neglected to
> mention that th
On 4/28/2012 6:10 AM, marco atzeri wrote:
On 4/28/2012 12:34 AM, Ken wrote:
Hello,
When attempting to do a download "ONLY", setup.exe caused the following
error to be displayed on Windows 7 64-bit:
===
Microsoft Visual C++ Runtime Library:
T
On 4/28/2012 12:34 AM, Ken wrote:
Hello,
When attempting to do a download "ONLY", setup.exe caused the following
error to be displayed on Windows 7 64-bit:
===
Microsoft Visual C++ Runtime Library:
This application has requested the Runtime t
Hello,
When attempting to do a download "ONLY", setup.exe
caused the following error to be displayed on Windows 7
64-bit:
===
Microsoft Visual C++ Runtime Library:
This application has requested the Runtime to terminate
it in an unusual wa
24 matches
Mail list logo
