On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 11:47:59AM +0800, Steven Woody wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I removed cygwin1.5 on both of my two computers, one is a laptop and
>another is a desktop, they are all Windows XP. ?I then installed
>cygwin 1.7 for them, the result is strange. ?The laptop seems okay,
>but the desktop, after I
Hi,
I removed cygwin1.5 on both of my two computers, one is a laptop and
another is a desktop, they are all Windows XP. I then installed
cygwin 1.7 for them, the result is strange. The laptop seems okay,
but the desktop, after I tried re-install many times, still always
fail when I execute fa-ca
> it probably would have been better to have checked here
> first before going to such effort.
Sorry, when I investigated this originally, the -p option didn't exist
in the mainstream setup.exe. I found a patch that did it, edited it
slightly to work with the latest rev of setup.exe (at the time
s
On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 05:41:42PM -0400, Ralph Hempel wrote:
>Miles Gazic wrote:
>>I made a local cygwin mirror at my company, but I still had some people
>>that got confused when installing cygwin. I've had the same problem at
>>previous jobs, where people are confused when installing cygwin, an
Miles Gazic wrote:
I made a local cygwin mirror at my company, but I still had some
people that got confused when installing cygwin. I've had the same
problem at previous jobs, where people are confused when installing
cygwin, and it makes them reluctant to do so.
I investigated what's required
I made a local cygwin mirror at my company, but I still had some
people that got confused when installing cygwin. I've had the same
problem at previous jobs, where people are confused when installing
cygwin, and it makes them reluctant to do so.
I investigated what's required to customize the cyg
Hello,
As I was told there is no current maintainer, I am volunteering to
maintain the three cygwin boost packages. However, I have a couple of
questions:
1) Should I just build the packages for cygwin 1.7, or do they need to
be built for 1.5 and 1.7?
2) Does anybody know what problem the two pat
Dave Korn wrote:
BTW, before jumping clumsily in with my dirty great size 9s, I did also
download the -src tarball with the dubious checksum and verify it (by diffing
against a recent cvs checkout) to make sure it hadn't *actually* been tampered
with; I didn't spot any suspicious insertions.
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> PLEASE don't tinker with the release directories, especially in an
> attempt to fix my packages.
Understood, sorry, won't do that again. The original md5.sum is in my ~/ if
you need it for anything. The time stamp reads "Jul 5 02:01" which I think
is the only poss
On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 04:49:09PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>Dave Korn wrote:
>> Fergus wrote:
>>> Downloaded from two different mirrors this file has md5sum
>>> 479d8f95c1306486af1adcb5a2ad54b1
>>> but setup-2.ini gives
>>> c3887f0ef36cc78c51c54abca9b4425a
>>> The file size 15536137 is correct.
>>
Dave Korn wrote:
> Fergus wrote:
>> Downloaded from two different mirrors this file has md5sum
>> 479d8f95c1306486af1adcb5a2ad54b1
>> but setup-2.ini gives
>> c3887f0ef36cc78c51c54abca9b4425a
>> The file size 15536137 is correct.
>
>
> Yes indeed. Looks like fallout from:
>
> http://cygwin.co
11 matches
Mail list logo
