Christopher Faylor wrote:
Harold Hunt has just, without any discussion here, created two new
categories. One is understandable and probably doesn't require
discussion.
He's changed XFree86 to X11. Oddly enough, XFree86 isn't currently
listed as a category in setup.html so I've added X11 to the li
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 05:22:32PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > >FWIW, it would be a trivial patch to the chooser code to, for example,
> > >grey out packages in the "_RemovedPackages" categor
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 05:22:32PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> >FWIW, it would be a trivial patch to the chooser code to, for example,
> >grey out packages in the "_RemovedPackages" category (once we settle on
> >the name).
>
> I like this idea
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 04:38:37PM -0400, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Harold Hunt has just, without any discussion here, created two new
>>categories. One is understandable and probably doesn't require
>>discussion.
>
>I actually created ZZZRemovedPackages at least a month
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 05:22:32PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>FWIW, it would be a trivial patch to the chooser code to, for example,
>grey out packages in the "_RemovedPackages" category (once we settle on
>the name).
I like this idea, if by "greyed out" you also mean unselectable.
>Another
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> >>Harold Hunt has just, without any discussion here, created two new
> >>categories. One is understandable and probably doesn't require
> >>discussion.
> >>
> >>He's ch
Robert Collins wrote:
On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 06:38, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
[cue offended remark from Rob Collins after his last offended remark
almost three weeks ago with still no action as far as I can tell, sorry
Rob, but I wish you could be more honest with yourself about how much
time yo
On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 06:38, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> A longer term solution would be a tag in setup.hint
> files that mark a package as removed, but this is insanely more complex.
Erm, what precisely do you want here. Simply removing the package should
be enough. Or are you looking for a 'repla
On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 06:38, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> [cue offended remark from Rob Collins after his last offended remark
> almost three weeks ago with still no action as far as I can tell, sorry
> Rob, but I wish you could be more honest with yourself about how much
> time you have].
I did
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> >
> > Barring a complete update to setup.exe to handle removed packages, I
> > think we might want adjust the script that generates
> > http://cygwin.com/packages/ to make it ignore packages i
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Barring a complete update to setup.exe to handle removed packages, I
> think we might want adjust the script that generates
> http://cygwin.com/packages/ to make it ignore packages in the
> ZZZRemovedPackages category, which will remove lots
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Harold Hunt has just, without any discussion here, created two new
categories. One is understandable and probably doesn't require
discussion.
He's changed XFree86 to X11. Oddly enough, XFree86 isn't currently
listed as a ca
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Harold Hunt has just, without any discussion here, created two new
> categories. One is understandable and probably doesn't require
> discussion.
>
> He's changed XFree86 to X11. Oddly enough, XFree86 isn't currently
> listed as a category in setup
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Harold Hunt has just, without any discussion here, created two new
categories. One is understandable and probably doesn't require
discussion.
I actually created ZZZRemovedPackages at least a month or more ago. As
you mention, X11 was not created, it was a rename of XFr
Harold Hunt has just, without any discussion here, created two new
categories. One is understandable and probably doesn't require
discussion.
He's changed XFree86 to X11. Oddly enough, XFree86 isn't currently
listed as a category in setup.html so I've added X11 to the list
of supported packages.
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 09:33:32AM -0700, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
>--- Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Another general request -- please don't mess with setup.ini. Don't
>>move it out of the way, edit it, etc. It is auto-generated. Anything
>>done to it is apt to cause prob
--- Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another general request -- please don't mess with setup.ini. Don't move
> it out of the way, edit it, etc. It is auto-generated. Anything done
> to it is apt to cause problems.
We're moving to apt?!?
__
Do you
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 05:14:18AM -, Cron Daemon wrote:
>upset: *** warning package XFree86-base requires non-existent package xorg-x11-base
>upset: *** warning package XFree86-bin requires non-existent package xorg-x11-bin
>upset: *** warning package XFree86-etc requires non-existent package
18 matches
Mail list logo
