- Original Message -
From: Charles Wilson
Newsgroups: gmane.os.cygwin.applications
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 8:54 PM
Subject: ITP: checkx-0.1.0-1
checkX is a little utility I wrote that tests to see if (a) the X11
client DLLs are installed on the machine, and (b) the Xserver on
- Original Message -
From: Corinna Vinschen Newsgroups: gmane.os.cygwin.applications
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 6:10 AM
Subject: Re: [ITP] libusb-win32 0.1.10.1
On Mar 26 21:43, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Hi,
With a little patch, I got libusb-win32 to compile and run on cygwin. I
Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Question: do ALL of the utilities listed above actually *work*, or merely
compile? If some are the latter, I think each should be removed from your
proposed package until they do.
I have not tested his package, but
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Charles said it all. Thanks for the offer, but MingW packages really
don't
belong in the Cygwin distro, but in the MingW distro.
I'm sorry, but on this one I must respectfully dissagree.
While Cygwin is clearly a disto, i find mingw to be more a compilation
target
Brian Dessent said:
C:\cygwin\bin\run bash -c /usr/X11R6/bin/gv -display localhost:0.0
\$(cygpath \%1\)\
This works for me.
Not bad. However, that is less than ideal for emacs.
I have a working solution with the following features:
Uses emacsserver, so that only one copy of emas needs to be
Yaakov S said:
Note that Perl/Tk is a Tk *implementation*, and does not depend on tcltk.
..
ldesc: Complete Perl interface for Tk, built against Cygwin/X.
Well that ldesc is confusing considering that.
I think some of the confusion stems from the fact that tk is too closely
associtated with
- Original Message -
From: Christopher Faylor
Newsgroups: gmane.os.cygwin.applications
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 1:53 PM
Subject: Regrouping on installation profile idea
So, do we have a list of potential ways to label these profiles? I
personally think that the term profile
As far as I can see, BSDPL is an Open Source license under the
definition referenced, so the exception should apply. (I gave up
arguing with the opensource.org people, but they never came up with
any argument for why BSDPL didn't qualify -- the worst they could
say was that it was poorly
Hi All...
Could it be distributed in kit form? That is, could it require the toold
to build it, and be built in the postinstall script?
Thanks,
IANAL, but copyright licenses are not intended to restrict what you do
privately. Since nobody is distributing the resulting binary, this is
It's hard to see the BSDPL as an open-source license, since only one
level of branching from the one true authorized source is allowed:
This only applies to commercial distribution. AFAICT this is some sort of
weird ANTI-GPL license, which works is much the same way as the GPL, except
also
I don't see a problem with this license. It certainly doesn't make any
problems as part of a Cygwin distro, as long as you (the maintainer)
adhere to the BSDPL when tweaking the package for the Cygwin distro.
The Clause:
In accordance with section 10 of the GPL, Red Hat permits programs whose
I rest my case that we should do at least something to mitigate the
dependencies issue on the release branch. Well, that is to say, we should
if we're going to release from that branch before the dependency work is
completed and back-ported, anyway.
Do note that those comments were jopshua's
I've also been told that
Copyright (c) 2000, 2001,2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 (as on cygwin.com)
means something different than 2000-2005 to lawyers.
The FSF indicates that there is indeed a slight legal difference, and i
belive they are correct. If you list each year individually it indicates
that
13 matches
Mail list logo
