> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 1:35 PM
> To: Robert Collins; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: PGP signatures for packages?
>
>
> > And adding GPG as a package should be easy. T
> We need a cygwin build -- perhaps built using a cygwin-targetted cross
> compiler on linux-host, but definitely not using a
> native-mswindows(mingw) targetted cross compiler on any host platform.
This ML message says it is not "so easy" to compile latest version for
Cygwin: http://lists.gn
Michael Young wrote:
>>And adding GPG as a package should be easy. There is already vounteer
>>binary downloads 'out there'. You just need to merge tehir build recipe
>>and patchs and the volunteer maintainer instructions.
>>
>
> My understanding is that the official Windows binaries for GnuPG a
> And adding GPG as a package should be easy. There is already vounteer
> binary downloads 'out there'. You just need to merge tehir build recipe
> and patchs and the volunteer maintainer instructions.
My understanding is that the official Windows binaries for GnuPG are
built on Linux using a cro
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 1:19 AM
> Would you be willing to provide the binary over HTTPS?
> It looks like Apache with mod_ssl is built for Cygwin.
This one I have no input on. Well I can voice an opinion, an
Cliff Hones wrote:
> [Etymology - moot is an old word meaning meeting place, typically
> for an assembly or court.]
>
Hurrah for the Entmoot!
--Chuck
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>That's it. But without that I will not sign setup.exe. Just like I
> > didn't compress it until UPX became a package :].
OK. I was hoping that you might treat this as a post-build
distribution step, and might allow the use of non-Cygwin tools
(much
> -Original Message-
> From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 5:28 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Collins
> Subject: Re: PGP signatures for packages?
>
>
> Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...
>
Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> Until that is done, conversation on this is moot.
> ...
'moot' is one of those words which doesn't travel well.
In UK English, it means "undecided" or "debatable", so a
moot point is one which hasn't been settled, and is open
to discussion.
I bel
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 3:27 PM
>
> So, how would the Cygwin team feel about GPG-signing just these
> two files?
I'm the setup.exe maintainer. Here's what I need before I will sign
setup.exe. (More on setup.in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
From: "Charles Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Currently, setup.ini contains md5 hashes for each tarball. The released
> version of setup.exe successfully ignores those md5's, but the HEAD will
Doh! I should have noticed that. That's great!
If the
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 1:43 PM
> >I saw a note back in December
> >(http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2001-12/msg00950.html)
> >that touched on this, but I couldn't find any followup. Did this
> >withe
Michael Young wrote:
> Are signatures available for the setup program, or for the packages it
> downloads?
> RPM uses GPG signatures, but I can't find anything comparable for the Cygwin
> binaries. Even just a list of hashes would be worthwhile (ideally vended from
> a secure Cygwin/Redhat web pa
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 11:26:30PM -0400, Michael Young wrote:
>Are signatures available for the setup program, or for the packages it
>downloads?
>RPM uses GPG signatures, but I can't find anything comparable for the Cygwin
>binaries. Even just a list of hashes would be worthwhile (ideally vende
Are signatures available for the setup program, or for the packages it
downloads?
RPM uses GPG signatures, but I can't find anything comparable for the Cygwin
binaries. Even just a list of hashes would be worthwhile (ideally vended from
a secure Cygwin/Redhat web page) to verify that a mirror (or
15 matches
Mail list logo
