On 07/09/2010 17:57, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 15:01 +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 07/09/2010 10:45, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
This code does not compile with i686-pc-mingw32 gcc-4.5.1:
postinstall.cc: In function ‘std::string
do_postinstall_thread(HINSTANCE__*, HWND__*)’:
po
On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 15:01 +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> On 07/09/2010 10:45, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> > This code does not compile with i686-pc-mingw32 gcc-4.5.1:
> >
> > postinstall.cc: In function ‘std::string
> > do_postinstall_thread(HINSTANCE__*, HWND__*)’:
> > postinstall.cc:178:85: error: n
On 07/09/2010 10:45, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 18:15 +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
+ // Remove anything which we just tried to run (so we don't try
twice)
+ for (i = packages.begin (); i != packages.end (); ++i)
+{
+ packagemeta& pkg = **i;
+ for (std::vector
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 18:15 +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> + // Remove anything which we just tried to run (so we don't try
> twice)
> + for (i = packages.begin (); i != packages.end (); ++i)
> +{
> + packagemeta & pkg = **i;
> + for (std::vector
On 28/08/2010 17:40, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 01:30:54PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 27/08/2010 19:33, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 06:15:38PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 29/07/2010 17:28, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 28/07/2010 15:58, Christopher Faylor
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 01:30:54PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>On 27/08/2010 19:33, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 06:15:38PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>>> On 29/07/2010 17:28, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 28/07/2010 15:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 03:
On 27/08/2010 19:33, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 06:15:38PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 29/07/2010 17:28, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 28/07/2010 15:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 03:25:17PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
Anyhow, here's another attempt, which un
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 06:15:38PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>On 29/07/2010 17:28, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>> On 28/07/2010 15:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 03:25:17PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
Anyhow, here's another attempt, which unfortunately changes rather more
th
On 29/07/2010 17:28, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 28/07/2010 15:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 03:25:17PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
Anyhow, here's another attempt, which unfortunately changes rather more than I
wanted to. It adds a new page, which is displayed if any script failed
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 09:14:54PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote:
>So here's another take at the patch, amended as suggested by Corinna.
>It now also tweaks the bottom coordinate of the results text box,
>because I found it ran into the line above the Back/Next/Cancel
>buttons.
Ship it!
cgf
On 13 August 2010 12:29, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 12 August 2010 20:42, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>@@ -433,7 +433,9 @@
>>> ICON IDI_CYGWIN,IDC_HEADICON,SETUP_HEADICON_X,0,21,20
>>> LTEXT "Postinstall script errors",IDC_STATIC_HEADER_TITLE
>>> ,7,0,
On Aug 13 12:01, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> But who is going to decide whether or not a failing postinstall script
> is ok or not, if not we maintainers?
If you're confused about the number of negations in this sentence,
so am I. I hope it's still clear what I was trying to say...
>
> So,
>
>
On 12 August 2010 20:42, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 08:31:24PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote:
>>On 12 August 2010 19:13, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Index: res.rc
>>===
>>RCS file: /cvs/cygwin-apps/setup/res.rc,v
>>
On Aug 12 15:42, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 08:31:24PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote:
> >On 12 August 2010 19:13, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >Index: res.rc
> >===
> >RCS file: /cvs/cygwin-apps/setup/res.rc,v
> >retr
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 08:31:24PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote:
>On 12 August 2010 19:13, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>Index: res.rc
>===
>RCS file: /cvs/cygwin-apps/setup/res.rc,v
>retrieving revision 2.88
>diff -u -r2.88 res.rc
>--- res.rc
On 12 August 2010 19:13, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> I think that wording will still cause consternation.
>>>
>>> Maybe we need something like:
>>>
>>> "This does not necessarily mean that the affected package will fail to
>>> function properly but if you do notice problems please check
>>> /var/
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 06:53:47PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote:
>On 12 August 2010 15:03, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:26:33PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>On Aug 12 11:10, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 12/08/2010 06:44, Andy Koppe wrote:
>Shall we tone down the error b
On 12 August 2010 15:03, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:26:33PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>On Aug 12 11:10, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>>> On 12/08/2010 06:44, Andy Koppe wrote:
>>> >Shall we tone down the error box here a little bit? A postinstall
>>> >failure in some obscure
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:26:33PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Aug 12 11:10, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>> On 12/08/2010 06:44, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> >Shall we tone down the error box here a little bit? A postinstall
>> >failure in some obscure package that might only have been installed
>> >due to th
On Aug 12 11:10, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> On 12/08/2010 06:44, Andy Koppe wrote:
> >Shall we tone down the error box here a little bit? A postinstall
> >failure in some obscure package that might only have been installed
> >due to the user selecting 'All' won't actually impact on the use of
> >Cygwin. I
On 12/08/2010 06:44, Andy Koppe wrote:
On 23 July 2010 18:45, Jon TURNEY wrote:
Here's a small patch for setup.exe which causes setup to indicate if a
postinstall script didn't run successfully.
This should help avoid the situation where the postinstall scripts fail to
run and the user has a br
On 23 July 2010 18:45, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> Here's a small patch for setup.exe which causes setup to indicate if a
> postinstall script didn't run successfully.
>
> This should help avoid the situation where the postinstall scripts fail to
> run and the user has a broken installation, but they don't
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 04:54:24PM -0400, Andrew Schulman wrote:
>> Could I get a gold star for this change? It fixes a longstanding annoyance.
>>
>> Also, one each for Jon and Andy for fixing other problems.
>
>All three awarded.
Thanks Andrew.
cgf
> Could I get a gold star for this change? It fixes a longstanding annoyance.
>
> Also, one each for Jon and Andy for fixing other problems.
All three awarded.
Hi,
Could I get a gold star for this change? It fixes a longstanding annoyance.
Also, one each for Jon and Andy for fixing other problems.
Thanks.
cgf
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 08:19:20PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 30/07/2010 15:37, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> errors" page. The only two pac
On 30/07/2010 21:46, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Actually, I barely care but would it be better to just use a goto the if
> statement at the end of that function and exit from the bottom?
>
> If you don't think it's a good idea then nevermind. Whatever it takes to
> finally fix this is fine with
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 04:44:24PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 08:19:20PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>>On 30/07/2010 15:37, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>
>>> errors" page. The only two packages that should have been installed
>>> were
>>>
>>> gcc: C compiler upgrade help
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 08:19:20PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 30/07/2010 15:37, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> errors" page. The only two packages that should have been installed
>> were
>>
>> gcc: C compiler upgrade helper
>> glib: Gnome C function library (1.2 sources)
>>
>> (both of which ar
On 30/07/2010 20:19, Dave Korn wrote:
> I finally got bored of this one. Turned out to be trivially easy to fix
> once I looked at it, it's simply an early exit from the install routine when
> there's nothing to do for a dummy tarball (zero or 46-byte size) that misses
> out on marking the pack
On 30/07/2010 15:37, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 05:28:02PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 28/07/2010 15:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 03:25:17PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
Anyhow, here's another attempt, which unfortunately changes rather more than I
w
On 30/07/2010 15:37, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> errors" page. The only two packages that should have been installed
> were
>
> gcc: C compiler upgrade helper
> glib: Gnome C function library (1.2 sources)
>
> (both of which are selected due to a setup.exe bug)
I finally got bored of this on
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 05:28:02PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>On 28/07/2010 15:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 03:25:17PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>>> Anyhow, here's another attempt, which unfortunately changes rather more
>>> than I
>>> wanted to. It adds a new page, whic
On 29 July 2010 20:39, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 05:28:02PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> I'm grateful that you and Andy have decided to take over
> setup.exe maintainership. I have a whole bunch of enhancement requests for
> you.
Nice try, but no, Jon can have it all to h
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 05:28:02PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>On 28/07/2010 15:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 03:25:17PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>>> Anyhow, here's another attempt, which unfortunately changes rather more
>>> than I
>>> wanted to. It adds a new page, whic
On 28/07/2010 15:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 03:25:17PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
Anyhow, here's another attempt, which unfortunately changes rather more than I
wanted to. It adds a new page, which is displayed if any script failed, and
reports which packages and script
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 03:25:17PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>On 23/07/2010 19:49, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 06:45:47PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>>> Here's a small patch for setup.exe which causes setup to indicate if a
>>> postinstall script didn't run successfully.
>>>
>
On 23/07/2010 19:49, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 06:45:47PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
Here's a small patch for setup.exe which causes setup to indicate if a
postinstall script didn't run successfully.
This should help avoid the situation where the postinstall scripts fail t
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 06:45:47PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>
>Here's a small patch for setup.exe which causes setup to indicate if a
>postinstall script didn't run successfully.
>
>This should help avoid the situation where the postinstall scripts fail to run
>and the user has a broken installat
Here's a small patch for setup.exe which causes setup to indicate if a
postinstall script didn't run successfully.
This should help avoid the situation where the postinstall scripts fail to run
and the user has a broken installation, but they don't notice until they try
to run something whic
39 matches
Mail list logo
