On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 11:07:41AM +0200, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> I've made new versions of each of the packages, but not all of them will
> be needed (as not all of them had the ./ bug): just the source, libpcre0
> and pcre were affected (OTOH it may be confusing to have packages with
I've made new versions of each of the packages, but not all of them will
be needed (as not all of them had the ./ bug): just the source, libpcre0
and pcre were affected (OTOH it may be confusing to have packages with
different version numbers but the same name working together)
Just let me know
Ah, that might explain the four files in /cygdrive/d/cygwin/usr/bin that
were reported on this list..
I'll fix it tout de suite :)
rlc
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> from the german Cygwin newsgroup I just got the hint, that there's a bug
> in the pcre-4.2 packaging.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> from the german Cygwin newsgroup I just got the hint, that there's a bug
> in the pcre-4.2 packaging. The paths of all files in /usr/bin are given
> as ./usr/bin/foo. Note the leading dot. Could you please fix that,
> Ronald?
>
> Corinna
Hi,
from the german Cygwin newsgroup I just got the hint, that there's a bug
in the pcre-4.2 packaging. The paths of all files in /usr/bin are given
as ./usr/bin/foo. Note the leading dot. Could you please fix that,
Ronald?
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails reg
