On Jun 3 16:39, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Ken Brown said:
> > But it does seem that the release of 1.7 is a good time to ...
>
> You know, folks, at some point we need to stop saying "1.7 is a good
> time to " and just release it. We already have
> the following "backwards incompatible" [*] change
On Jun 3 14:53, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Right. That's because the space key does not return any other character
> then 0x20 in the Windows console, regardless of the modifier keys you're
> pressing. Same goes for Alt-Space which should ideally return Esc-Space
> or \240. Maybe we should reall
1. download db-4.7.25 from oracle at
http://www.oracle.com/database/berkeley-db/index.html (havn't tested
on other version)
2. configure like : ../dist/configure --prefix=/home/Bambo/db-for-1.7
--enable-cxx --enable-pthread_api
3. make, it will take you a few minutes
4. write a program like :
#incl
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> 6) [possible] switch to gcc4 as official compiler (with associated
>> deliberate ABI breakage *without* DLL version number bumps -- see
>> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2009-04/msg00034.html). It's pretty
>> clear this will happen *eventually*. Whether it happens
>> b
> - New versions of GCC and binutils would be nice. I'd especially
> appreciate if GCC would start to create executables with the TS-aware
> flag by default so that the distro is sort of self-healing in terms of
> running on Terminal Servers.
>
> Am I missing something else?
Any possibility we
Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
> Any possibility we could get a gcc-4 MinGW cross compiler and drop the
> '-mno-cygwin' stuff? It seems to cause no end of confusion.
Yes, but it's a lower priority to me than getting the base system solid
first. Also, it needs re-arranging w32api and the mingw libs in
On 6/4/2009 5:30 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jun 3 14:53, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Right. That's because the space key does not return any other character
then 0x20 in the Windows console, regardless of the modifier keys you're
pressing. Same goes for Alt-Space which should ideally return E
On Jun 4 12:49, Dave Korn wrote:
> Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
>
> > Any possibility we could get a gcc-4 MinGW cross compiler and drop the
> > '-mno-cygwin' stuff? It seems to cause no end of confusion.
>
> Yes, but it's a lower priority to me than getting the base system solid
> first. Also, it
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jun 3 16:39, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> "backwards incompatible" [*] changes
I hope it was clear that I wasn't being critical of the fact that there
were some major changes in cygwin-1.7. I was just trying to halt the
"feature creep", since you (Corinna) have said tha
Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
> Any possibility we could get a gcc-4 MinGW cross compiler and drop the
> '-mno-cygwin' stuff? It seems to cause no end of confusion.
IMO, this might need coordination with the mingw team. We probably want
our mingw gcc4 to be compatible with *their* mingw gcc4, right? D
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 09:06:15AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Jun 3 16:39, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>> "backwards incompatible" [*] changes
>
>I hope it was clear that I wasn't being critical of the fact that there
>were some major changes in cygwin-1.7. I was just
Wrong mailing list. Use the main cygwin list for bug reports.
See: http://cygwin.com/lists.html for more details.
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> As for "low priority". In the short run, as long as the actual mingw
> cross compiler isn't available, I assume we could just stick to a gcc-3
> package for this purpose, right?
Yep. Static linked mingw apps will be just fine like that.
cheers,
DaveK
On Jun 4 09:06, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Jun 3 16:39, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >> "backwards incompatible" [*] changes
> [...]
> We don't have time between now and $RELEASEDATE to do any of that.
>
> That's all I'm saying.
ACK.
> >
> > And it's really not my faul
(please direct replies to the main cygwin list; I can't set reply-to on
this web interface...)
For context, see the bottom of this post:
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2009-06/msg00048.html
Corinna wrote:
> I never, ever saw a problem like this on my Vista/2K8 test VMs. Nor on
> the W7 VMs. A
1.5
wget -x -nH --cut-dirs=2 \
http://mysite.verizon.net/res00a7j/cygwin/subversion/setup.hint \
http://mysite.verizon.net/res00a7j/cygwin/subversion/subversion-1.6.2-3-src.tar.bz2
\
http://mysite.verizon.net/res00a7j/cygwin/subversion/subversion-1.6.2-3.tar.bz2
\
http
> Yes, but it's a lower priority to me than getting the base system solid
> first. Also, it needs re-arranging w32api and the mingw libs into a real
> cross-$prefix/$target, rather than putting them in subdirs of $prefix/lib and
> $prefix/include as we currently do.
I'm more than happy to make a
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 01:45:32PM -0400, Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
>>Yes, but it's a lower priority to me than getting the base system solid
>>first. Also, it needs re-arranging w32api and the mingw libs into a
>>real cross-$prefix/$target, rather than putting them in subdirs of
>>$prefix/lib and $p
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 01:58:11PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 01:45:32PM -0400, Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
>>>Yes, but it's a lower priority to me than getting the base system solid
>>>first. Also, it needs re-arranging w32api and the mingw libs into a
>>>real cross-$pre
>>Chris, how would you and the other MinGW developers feel about moving
>>mingw and w32api somewhere else?
>
> Just to be clear: By "somewhere else" I meant into their own
> repositories, not away from sourceware.
I'll bring it up with the other MinGW developers, but from my point of
view, I'm mor
On Jun 4 13:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Chris, how would you and the other MinGW developers feel about moving
> mingw and w32api somewhere else?
>
> There has been some talk about splitting apart the various components of
> the "src" directory (gdb, binutils, cygwin, etc.) and it might be tim
On Jun 4 09:18, David Rothenberger wrote:
> 1.5
>
> wget -x -nH --cut-dirs=2 \
> http://mysite.verizon.net/res00a7j/cygwin/subversion/setup.hint \
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/res00a7j/cygwin/subversion/subversion-1.6.2-3-src.tar.bz2
> \
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/res
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 08:23:11PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Jun 4 13:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Chris, how would you and the other MinGW developers feel about moving
>>mingw and w32api somewhere else?
>>
>>There has been some talk about splitting apart the various components
>>of th
On Jun 4 14:48, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 08:23:11PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >Personally I'd rather keep the w32api directory in the same repository
> >as Cygwin. It's much more convenient to have the latest CVS version
> >always right where it's needed instead
1.5
wget -x -nH --cut-dirs=2 \
http://mysite.verizon.net/res00a7j/cygwin/libaprutil1/aprutil1/aprutil1-1.3.4-3.tar.bz2
\
http://mysite.verizon.net/res00a7j/cygwin/libaprutil1/aprutil1/setup.hint \
http://mysite.verizon.net/res00a7j/cygwin/libapruti
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 09:40:09PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Jun 4 14:48, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 08:23:11PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >Personally I'd rather keep the w32api directory in the same repository
>> >as Cygwin. It's much more convenient to
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 09:40:09PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Jun 4 14:48, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> And, also, incidentally, the other thing that is being contemplated is
>>> moving to a more modern SCM like subversion or git.
>> Oh no, not git, please.
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 10:14:57PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> I suppose we could just stay with CVS while everyone else moves to git.
>> If the repository is splitting (which I think it should have done long
>> ago) then it won't matter what we use except that updating a single
>> sandbox will
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 10:14:57PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 09:40:09PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>On Jun 4 14:48, Christopher Faylor wrote:
And, also, incidentally, the other thing that is being contemplated is
moving to a more
29 matches
Mail list logo
