Re: setup.exe is too small

Igor Pechtchanski wrote: Andrew, I ought to re-read my messages before I send them (I started out addressing you and drifted off on a tangent). What can I say except "I apologize"? Apology accepted. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: htt

Re: setup.exe is too small

David Robinow wrote: Andrew DeFaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It is indeed a natural assumption that the phrase "to demand that something be done" is addressed to me, that I was demanding that something be done. Andrew, relax. And pay attention. I was paying attention. He addressed me. The as

Re: setup.exe is too small

I can't agree. Take it in context with what was written. The "fix it yourself" response was in response to a somewhat rude request that a problem be fixed. It had words like "For the love of open source" "what is the hold up?" and "I'm dying here". I don't think newbie should necessarily mean

RE: Using the button to Reply (RE: setup.exe is too small)

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf > Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] --8<-- > 1. Those that want replies to their email redirected to the list only > (cygwin at cygwin dot com) should set their "Reply-To" field. > > 2. Those who reply to email with such a setting should not o

RE: setup.exe is too small

> -Original Message- > Subject: Re: setup.exe is too small > > >It is indeed a natural assumption that the phrase "to demand that > >something be done" is addressed to me, that I was demanding that > >something be done. > , relax. And pay attent

Re: setup.exe is too small

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Andrew DeFaria wrote: > Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > > Andrew, > > > > I was not accusing anyone of anything; I was simply commenting on the > > general statements made by people in this thread. I'm sorry if it > > seems to you that you were accused. You did read the P.S., righ

Re: setup.exe is too small

On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 09:31:21PM -0500, David Robinow wrote: >Andrew DeFaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>It is indeed a natural assumption that the phrase "to demand that >>something be done" is addressed to me, that I was demanding that >>something be done. >Andrew, relax. And pay attentio

Re: setup.exe is too small

Andrew DeFaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >It is indeed a natural assumption that the phrase "to demand that >something be done" is addressed to me, that I was demanding that >something be done. Andrew, relax. And pay attention. The whole thread was about people who did seem to demand that so

Re: setup.exe is too small

Igor Pechtchanski wrote: Andrew, I was not accusing anyone of anything; I was simply commenting on the general statements made by people in this thread. I'm sorry if it seems to you that you were accused. You did read the P.S., right? The PS only says that this is not a flame. Still you reply t

Re: setup.exe is too small

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Andrew DeFaria wrote: > Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > > All in all, developers of Cygwin in particular are maintaining their > > packages in their [copious] spare time, and to demand that something > > be done "right now" because someone can't use their package is, to say > > th

Re: setup.exe is too small

Igor Pechtchanski wrote: All in all, developers of Cygwin in particular are maintaining their packages in their [copious] spare time, and to demand that something be done "right now" because someone can't use their package is, to say the least, unreasonable, IMO. Did you honestly miss the part

Re: setup.exe is too small

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Andrew DeFaria wrote: Robert Collins wrote: >> On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 10:02, Andrew DeFaria wrote: > Christopher Faylor wrote >> >> And, different agendas as well. No one in free software has to work >> on things that they don't want to work on. >> >> And,

Re: setup.exe is too small

Max Bowsher wrote: Andrew DeFaria wrote: OK - I'll write up a web page detailing how to use various aspects of setup, IF you will make the chooser resizable for me. That sentence is incredibly antagonistic. Sorry you feel that way but I said it because I mean it. Obviously you don't believe me.

Re: setup.exe is too small

Andrew DeFaria wrote: > OK - I'll write up a web page detailing how to use various aspects of > setup, IF you will make the chooser resizable for me. That sentence is incredibly antagonistic. >>> *) Contract someone else to implement the feature for them. "I'll >>> put $20 into a pool for the pro

Re: setup.exe is too small

Robert Collins wrote: On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 10:02, Andrew DeFaria wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote And, different agendas as well. No one in free software has to work on things that they don't want to work on. And, the theory that "You know how to do it. You're doing all this other stuff, why d

Re: Using the button to "Reply" (RE: setup.exe is too small)

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Hannu E K Nevalainen (garbage mail) wrote: > > Yeah, why? I'm obviously on this mailing list, since I answered your > > question, so why did you decide to reply to me off list? > > Sorry for butting in... but I have been there myself. > > IMO there is one, not so obvious, mal

Re: setup.exe is too small

--- Max Bowsher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > DH wrote: > > --- Pavel Tsekov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, DH wrote: > >> > >>> For the love of open source, > >>> is the setup.exe dialog listing the > >>> packages ever going to get bigger? > >>> > >>> I've searched the mailing

Re: setup.exe is too small

On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 10:02, Andrew DeFaria wrote: > Christopher Faylor wrote > > > And, different agendas as well. No one in free software has to work on > > things that they don't want to work on. > > > > And, the theory that "You know how to do it. You're doing all this > > other stuff, why d

Re: setup.exe is too small

On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 11:28, Andrew DeFaria wrote: > Yes. It would be nice if there were such easily accessable and promently > displayed things on the Cygwin site. I'll repeat the offer I made last time this wish was expressed: If you will maintain it, I am happy for you do so, on the cygwin si

Re: setup.exe is too small

At 16:28 2003-03-06, Andrew DeFaria wrote: ... I find it a bit tedious to check quite frankly. (*) ... * Another problem that often gets me is that every site is different, with different semantics and methodologies of searching and finding the necessary information. Personally I prefer a prodo

Re: setup.exe is too small

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Andrew DeFaria wrote: > [snip] > Of course, your own "PGA" phrase is a more gentle way of saying "Fix It > Yourself!". (Hey should we add FIY! to the acronym list? :-) Not quite, but it does give me an idea... :-) Igor --

Re: setup.exe is too small

Igor Pechtchanski wrote: But when a feature is requested a couple of times a month independently by many people, it gets a bit tedious to reply "it's being worked on (in our copious free time)" [this is not to say that I'm the one working on it]. People requesting features should first check w

Re: setup.exe is too small

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Andrew DeFaria wrote: > Max Bowsher wrote: > > >> It's amazing to me how people can't see this! > > > > We can. However, we too have significant shortages of free time. > > OK and I fully expected that you guys were also busy. However I do not > see the need to bash (or is that

Re: setup.exe is too small

Christopher Faylor wrote And, different agendas as well. No one in free software has to work on things that they don't want to work on. And, the theory that "You know how to do it. You're doing all this other stuff, why don't you do this too?" doesn't really sound right to me. Chris do not view

Re: setup.exe is too small

Max Bowsher wrote: It's amazing to me how people can't see this! We can. However, we too have significant shortages of free time. OK and I fully expected that you guys were also busy. However I do not see the need to bash (or is that /bin/bash :-)) somebody else because they request a fix. Not e

Re: setup.exe is too small

On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:43:49PM -, Max Bowsher wrote: >Andrew DeFaria wrote: >>Pavel Tsekov wrote: >>I'm certain that if I took some time I could do it but I don't have the >>time to do it. IOW it would take me perhaps months to do because the >>added time to get to know all the stuff I'd n

Re: setup.exe is too small

Andrew DeFaria wrote: > Pavel Tsekov wrote: > >> On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, DH wrote: >> >>> For the love of open source, is the setup.exe dialog listing the >>> packages ever going to get bigger? >>> >>> I've searched the mailing list and people complained about this >>> before. >>> >>> What is the

Re: setup.exe is too small

Pavel Tsekov wrote: On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, DH wrote: For the love of open source, is the setup.exe dialog listing the packages ever going to get bigger? I've searched the mailing list and people complained about this before. What is the hold up? (3 months back I got so frustrated by this I swore

RE: Using the button to Reply (RE: setup.exe is too small)

ge mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:03:34 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Using the button to "Reply" (RE: setup.exe is too small) > Yeah, why? I'm obviously on this mailing list, since I answered your > question, so why did you decide to reply to me off l

Re: Using the button to "Reply" (RE: setup.exe is too small)

On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 07:03, Hannu E K Nevalainen (garbage mail) wrote: > > I have appended the headers of the message I replied to, for ref. > > > Hmm...? After proofreading; These looks odd: > -- > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > --

Using the button to "Reply" (RE: setup.exe is too small)

from unknown (HELO gold.csi.cam.ac.uk) (131.111.8.12) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 6 Mar 2003 13:22:08 - Received: from mob22.robinson.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.217.120] helo=pomello) by gold.csi.cam.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 18qvK4-0008Kb-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 13:22:08 +0000 Message

Re: setup.exe is too small

DH wrote: > --- Pavel Tsekov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, DH wrote: >> >>> For the love of open source, >>> is the setup.exe dialog listing the >>> packages ever going to get bigger? >>> >>> I've searched the mailing list and people >>> complained about this before. >>> >>> Wha

Re: setup.exe is too small

--- Pavel Tsekov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, DH wrote: > > > For the love of open source, > > is the setup.exe dialog listing the > > packages ever going to get bigger? > > > > I've searched the mailing list and people > > complained about this before. > > > > What is the h

Re: setup.exe is too small

Y'all left out the part that you have not changed setup because you are just plain mean! It is interesting, some people can just not give up the idea of software products and services where it is always "someone else" who "needs" to do things for the customer, who just sits back and uses the produ

Re: setup.exe is too small

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, DH wrote: > For the love of open source, > is the setup.exe dialog listing the > packages ever going to get bigger? > > I've searched the mailing list and people > complained about this before. > > What is the hold up? > (3 months back I got so frustrated by this I swore off

Re: setup.exe is too small

DH wrote: > For the love of open source, ... Fix it yourself? After all, the whole point of open source is that you can modify the software you use. > is the setup.exe dialog listing the > packages ever going to get bigger? Yes. There is a patch nearly ready to apply. It's author is chasing down

setup.exe is too small

For the love of open source, is the setup.exe dialog listing the packages ever going to get bigger? I've searched the mailing list and people complained about this before. What is the hold up? (3 months back I got so frustrated by this I swore off cygwin up until today) I hate scrolling windows