On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Henry Da Costa wrote:
Larry Hall wrote:
Why do you only have the executable? Also, why can't the provider of
this executable give you with the support you need? Strictly
speaking, if the provider hasn't purchased a commercial license from
Red Hat, they are legally
Henry Da Costa wrote:
Hello Mr. Faylor,
You have sent this message to a public mailing list.
I hope you can help me. I'm looking for a complete Cygwin version 1.3.20
set of packages but have so far been unable to find it.
The phrase complete Cygwin version 1.3.20 set of packages is
Max Bowsher wrote:
You have sent this message to a public mailing list.
Thanks for replying. I didn't realize that the Christopher Faylor link
at http://www.cygwin.com/ led to the cygwin mailing list. I should have
been more vigilant.
The phrase complete Cygwin version 1.3.20 set of packages
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Henry Da Costa wrote:
Max Bowsher wrote:
You have sent this message to a public mailing list.
Thanks for replying. I didn't realize that the Christopher Faylor link
at http://www.cygwin.com/ led to the cygwin mailing list. I should have
been more vigilant.
Perhaps
Elfyn McBratney wrote:
I will add this though: If you have a program that worked on 1.3.20*
which does
not work on 1.3.22* it's more productive to try and find out the cause
of the
problem rather than going back in time. If it turns out to be a
problem in the
Cygwin DLL, matbe the royal we can
Henry Da Costa wrote:
Elfyn McBratney wrote:
I will add this though: If you have a program that worked on 1.3.20*
which does
not work on 1.3.22* it's more productive to try and find out the cause
of the
problem rather than going back in time. If it turns out to be a
problem in the
Cygwin DLL,
Larry Hall wrote:
Why do you only have the executable? Also, why can't the provider of
this executable give you with the support you need? Strictly
speaking, if the provider hasn't purchased a commercial license from
Red Hat, they are legally bound by the GPL. If they aren't providing
7 matches
Mail list logo