On Fri, 31 Mar 2017, Andrew Schulman wrote:
On Mar 30 21:17, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
On 03/28/2017 04:46 PM, Peter A. Castro wrote:
Greetings, All,
First, my apologies in advance if this is considered off-topic, or
unwelcome in some way...
Unwelcome? I find it shocking! Imagine, the
> On Mar 30 21:17, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> > On 03/28/2017 04:46 PM, Peter A. Castro wrote:
> > > Greetings, All,
> > >First, my apologies in advance if this is considered off-topic, or
> > > unwelcome in some way...
> >
> > Unwelcome? I find it shocking! Imagine, the audacity of
On Mar 30 21:17, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> On 03/28/2017 04:46 PM, Peter A. Castro wrote:
> > Greetings, All,
> >First, my apologies in advance if this is considered off-topic, or
> > unwelcome in some way...
>
> Unwelcome? I find it shocking! Imagine, the audacity of providing this
>
On 03/28/2017 04:46 PM, Peter A. Castro wrote:
Greetings, All,
First, my apologies in advance if this is considered off-topic, or
unwelcome in some way...
Unwelcome? I find it shocking! Imagine, the audacity of providing this
service to the Cygwin community for all these years and to now
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 28 13:46, Peter A. Castro wrote:
Greetings, All,
!! Attention !!
The Cygwin Time Machine has moved! After many years (and several
complaints) I've finally moved it to an off-site server with much better
bandwidth
t; suggested, I will post this there too. Thanks!
>
> -
>
> !! Attention !!
>
> The Cygwin Time Machine has moved! After many years (and several
> complaints) I've finally moved it to an off-site server with much better
> bandwidth available
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Peter A. Castro wrote:
> Greetings, All,
> First, my apologies in advance if this is considered off-topic, or
> unwelcome in some way. I figured this would be an appropriate audience in
> which to express this information. If a more appropriate forum is
>
!
-
!! Attention !!
The Cygwin Time Machine has moved! After many years (and several
complaints) I've finally moved it to an off-site server with much better
bandwidth available. I've also swapped out the FTP server for a
standard web server for package delivery, which should
or way to say Oh this is 1.7.10.
I want all of the Cygwin things that were associated with 1.7.9. Toggle
all of the packages back to their versions that were released when 1.7.9
was released. Maybe such a beast doesn't exist...
Well, there is the Cygwin Time Machine:
http://www.fruitbat.org
basis. What I'm asking for is a button or way to say Oh this is 1.7.10.
I want all of the Cygwin things that were associated with 1.7.9. Toggle
all of the packages back to their versions that were released when 1.7.9
was released. Maybe such a beast doesn't exist...
Well, there is the Cygwin Time
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Peter A. Castro wrote:
Sorry for dredging this up, but just wanted to update on a few things.
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:58:18PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
Actually, I think this is a neat idea. I tried to do something
Peter Castro wrote:
(if there's a way to make wget ignore robots.txt, I'd love to know
it!)
http://www.gnu.org/software/wget/faq.html#3.0
3.0 How can I make GNU wget ignore a robots.txt file?
Try using:
wget -erobots=off http://your.site.here
-Richard Campbell
--
Unsubscribe info:
Peter A. Castro wrote:
Hmm... How complete is it? Did you pull all the source packages as
well? Did you keep the setup.ini with it? What about the setup.exe
itself?
It's everything except the split downloads so 28.8k modem users will just
have to bite the bullet.
Oddly enough it comes with a
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Larry Hall wrote:
At 11:05 PM 1/26/2005, you wrote:
Peter A. Castro wrote:
might find it useful or interesting. Unfortinately, it only goes
back to April of 2002, though I actually have package versions going
back further, but not the setup.ini to go with them.
You
Peter A. Castro wrote:
Hmm... How complete is it? Did you pull all the source packages as well?
Did you keep the setup.ini with it? What about the setup.exe itself?
I don't remember when setup.exe came into being, but it was after b20.
At that time, you had the option if downloading one of two
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Warren Young wrote:
Peter A. Castro wrote:
Hmm... How complete is it? Did you pull all the source packages as well?
Did you keep the setup.ini with it? What about the setup.exe itself?
I don't remember when setup.exe came into being, but it was after b20.
At that
Peter A. Castro wrote:
I'd still like to archive it. If you can stabalize your ftp host I'll
pull it. Alternatively, I can setup an incoming dir on my machine if
you'd prefer to push from your end.
Well three people have pulled it off in the last 10 hours and it looked like
it took them 15 to
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:58:18PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
Actually, I think this is a neat idea. I tried to do something like it
for personal use about 18 months ago -- I wanted a one-time snapshot of
the cygwin-1.3.x baseline just prior to the 1.5.x transition.
But I waited too long
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Charles Wilson wrote:
Actually, I think this is a neat idea. I tried to do something like it
for personal use about 18 months ago -- I wanted a one-time snapshot of
the cygwin-1.3.x baseline just prior to the 1.5.x transition.
But I waited too long (e.g. after packages
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:58:18PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
Actually, I think this is a neat idea. I tried to do something like it
for personal use about 18 months ago -- I wanted a one-time snapshot of
the cygwin-1.3.x baseline just prior
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:25:45PM -0800, Peter A. Castro wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
However, because I'm a masochist, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a
good idea to advertise this as cygwin news on the front page of
http://cygwin.com/.
Gosh, Chris, I'm flattered you'd
Peter A. Castro wrote:
might find it useful or interesting. Unfortinately, it only goes
back to April of 2002, though I actually have package versions going
back further, but not the setup.ini to go with them.
You didn't mention the b20/20.1 release. If you and anyone doesn't have it
and wants
At 11:05 PM 1/26/2005, you wrote:
Peter A. Castro wrote:
might find it useful or interesting. Unfortinately, it only goes
back to April of 2002, though I actually have package versions going
back further, but not the setup.ini to go with them.
You didn't mention the b20/20.1 release. If you
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Jon A. Lambert wrote:
Peter A. Castro wrote:
might find it useful or interesting. Unfortinately, it only goes
back to April of 2002, though I actually have package versions going
back further, but not the setup.ini to go with them.
You didn't mention the b20/20.1
Actually, I think this is a neat idea. I tried to do something like it
for personal use about 18 months ago -- I wanted a one-time snapshot of
the cygwin-1.3.x baseline just prior to the 1.5.x transition.
But I waited too long (e.g. after packages which required 1.5.x had
polluted the
At 02:19 AM 1/23/2005, you wrote:
I'm probably going to regret this :)
For some time, I've been keeping a private mirror of Cygwin for my own
personal use. Unlike other mirrors, I've been keeping all of the
versions of all packages, along with a revision of setup.ini to go with
it.
Now, call me
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Larry Hall wrote:
At 02:19 AM 1/23/2005, you wrote:
I'm probably going to regret this :)
For some time, I've been keeping a private mirror of Cygwin for my own
personal use. Unlike other mirrors, I've been keeping all of the
versions of all packages, along with a
I'm probably going to regret this :)
For some time, I've been keeping a private mirror of Cygwin for my own
personal use. Unlike other mirrors, I've been keeping all of the
versions of all packages, along with a revision of setup.ini to go with
it.
Now, call me crazy (and I know you already do
28 matches
Mail list logo
