Re: nuke cygwin legacy?

2013-02-05 Thread Cygwin/X
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:56:42 +0100, Erwin Waterlander wrote: > It doesn't matter that it is not secure. Yes, it does. IMHO it is irresponsible on our part to distribute unmaintained or knowingly vulnerable software, and it reflects badly on the Cygwin project. Yaakov

Re: nuke cygwin legacy?

2013-02-05 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 07:57:58PM -0600, Yaakov wrote: >On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 13:00:43 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> Because it is taking space on the web site and on sourceware.org and >> there is no good reason for it to be offered anymore. If there are >> virtual machines running ME then, i

Re: nuke cygwin legacy?

2013-02-05 Thread Cygwin/X
On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 13:00:43 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: > Because it is taking space on the web site and on sourceware.org and > there is no good reason for it to be offered anymore. If there are > virtual machines running ME then, if they haven't installed Cygwin 1.5 > by now, there is no re

Re: nuke cygwin legacy?

2013-02-05 Thread Erwin Waterlander
Christopher Faylor schreef, Op 5-2-2013 19:00: On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 06:49:25PM +0100, Thomas Wolff wrote: Am 05.02.2013 18:41, schrieb Christopher Faylor: Corinna +1'ed my suggestion that it was time to remove cygwin 1.5 support so I'm wondering if anyone has any objections to removing 1.5 f

Re: nuke cygwin legacy?

2013-02-05 Thread Warren Young
On 2/5/2013 10:41, Christopher Faylor wrote: Corinna +1'ed my suggestion that it was time to remove cygwin 1.5 support so I'm wondering if anyone has any objections to removing 1.5 from cygwin.com. It seems to me that the sort of person who's still hanging onto a DOS-based version of Windows p

Re: nuke cygwin legacy?

2013-02-05 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 06:49:25PM +0100, Thomas Wolff wrote: >Am 05.02.2013 18:41, schrieb Christopher Faylor: >> Corinna +1'ed my suggestion that it was time to remove cygwin 1.5 >> support so I'm wondering if anyone has any objections to removing >> 1.5 from cygwin.com. >> >> I was going to sugg

Re: [PATCH setup 0/2] List and offer to kill processes preventing a file from being written

2013-02-05 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 05:42:08PM +, Jon TURNEY wrote: >On 05/02/2013 16:16, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> On Feb 5 11:06, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> Wow. Ambitious! >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 03:24:48PM +, Jon TURNEY wrote: I find it irritating to have to work out which proces

Re: nuke cygwin legacy?

2013-02-05 Thread Thomas Wolff
Am 05.02.2013 18:41, schrieb Christopher Faylor: Corinna +1'ed my suggestion that it was time to remove cygwin 1.5 support so I'm wondering if anyone has any objections to removing 1.5 from cygwin.com. I was going to suggest this a few months ago and mention that the Cygwin Time Machine was an a

Re: [PATCH setup 0/2] List and offer to kill processes preventing a file from being written

2013-02-05 Thread Jon TURNEY
On 05/02/2013 16:16, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Feb 5 11:06, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> Wow. Ambitious! >> >> On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 03:24:48PM +, Jon TURNEY wrote: >>> I find it irritating to have to work out which process I need to stop when >>> setup >>> can't update a file, and set

nuke cygwin legacy?

2013-02-05 Thread Christopher Faylor
Corinna +1'ed my suggestion that it was time to remove cygwin 1.5 support so I'm wondering if anyone has any objections to removing 1.5 from cygwin.com. I was going to suggest this a few months ago and mention that the Cygwin Time Machine was an alternative but it looks like that service is no lon

Re: [PATCH setup 0/2] List and offer to kill processes preventing a file from being written

2013-02-05 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Feb 5 11:06, Christopher Faylor wrote: > Wow. Ambitious! > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 03:24:48PM +, Jon TURNEY wrote: > >I find it irritating to have to work out which process I need to stop when > >setup > >can't update a file, and setup not helping you find it doesn't really meet > >c

Re: [PATCH setup 0/2] List and offer to kill processes preventing a file from being written

2013-02-05 Thread Christopher Faylor
Wow. Ambitious! On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 03:24:48PM +, Jon TURNEY wrote: >I find it irritating to have to work out which process I need to stop when >setup >can't update a file, and setup not helping you find it doesn't really meet >contemporary standards. So, loosely inspired by [1], a pa

[PATCH setup 2/2] List and offer to kill processes preventing a file from being written

2013-02-05 Thread Jon TURNEY
- Enumerate processes preventing a file from being written - Replace the MessageBox reporting an in-use file with a DialogBox reporting the in-use file and the processes which are using that file. - Use /usr/bin/kill to kill processes which have files open, trying SIGTERM, then SIGKILL, then Termin

[PATCH setup 1/2] Refactor ::run() so it's more generally useful

2013-02-05 Thread Jon TURNEY
Move all the logging of the command it runs in Move the formatting of the command line used for postinstall script running out 2013-02-01 Jon TURNEY * script.cc (::run, Script::run): Move the formatting of the command line used for postinstall script running out to Script::run.

[PATCH setup 0/2] List and offer to kill processes preventing a file from being written

2013-02-05 Thread Jon TURNEY
I find it irritating to have to work out which process I need to stop when setup can't update a file, and setup not helping you find it doesn't really meet contemporary standards. So, loosely inspired by [1], a patch to list and offer to kill processes preventing a file from being written. Th